Illegal Mexican Alien Sues Sheriff For Deporting Him

[HogTrash]

Criminals use political correctness and our own laws against us.

Sheriff Richard Jones is a great American who is just doing his job. :salute:

E-mail your support for Sheriff Richard Jones to http://www.butlersheriff.org/.

Sheriff Is Defendant

BUTLER COUNTY, Ohio -- Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones faces charges in federal court that he violated a man's constitutional rights. The court will decide if the sheriff authorized his employees to detain an illegal immigrant and whether that was his right to do.

Luis Rodriguez had lived in the United States for 11 years when Butler County Sheriff's deputies and a former federal immigration worker Jones had hired at the sheriff's office arrived at the construction work site where Rodriguez was working on Port Union Road in Hamilton in 2007.

Rodriguez' lawyer, Al Gerhardstein, says the deputies and the former ICE agent said they wanted to talk to a supervisor about documenting workers. But while there, they also questioned several workers including Rodriguez. They arrested him and he was deported. His family, including two children born in the United States and therefore U.S. citizens, returned to Mexico so the family could remain intact.

Rodriguez sued the sheriff, saying it wasn't his place to do the job of federal immigration agents.

Tuesday, at the federal courthouse in downtown Cincinnati, Judge Tim Black heard arguments from Gerhardstein that the sheriff's workers had conducted an illegal detention and questioning. “Our case is not really about whether or not he should be sent out, " Gerhardstein says. "Our case is about the process we use and the fairness we apply to people. In this case, we are arguing that the sheriff deputies illegally arrested him. Swept into a work site without using the common legal means. Didn’t have probable cause, didn’t have reasonable suspicion, and seized him and collected the evidence they needed to deport him.”

The sheriff's attorney disagreed and told Judge Black that other courts have ruled in similar cases that what the sheriff did is legal.

Sheriff Jones wouldn't comment on the case to the I-Team.

Judge Black will decide in the next few weeks if the case should go to trial, get a direct verdict from a jury or if he rules for the sheriff, he could throw out the case altogether.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/I-Team-Sheriff-Is-Defendant/6OfAZXWftkKLrq5qUoB6Ng.cspxI would say that whether or not the case gets thrown out depends on whether or not Judge Black is a liberal or a conservative.

Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones stands next to a illegal aliens sign he had placed in the parking lot of the Butler County Sheriff's Department, Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005 in Hamilton, Ohio. Jones says federal authorities aren't doing enough to enforce immigration laws.
http://www.journal-news.com/news/crime/butler-county-sheriff-facing-charges-in-immigration-case-513452.html

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so the alien was here illegally, and the cop arrested him for doing something illegal. The illegal got deported, which is what happens. I don't see the problem here.

[Gaffer]

Hamilton is overwhelmed with illegals. Jones is a hard nose no nonsense sheriff. I believe in that particular raid there were a whole bunch of illegals rounded up. They are reporting it like it was a single arrest.

Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law, whether its local, state or federal.

[Agnapostate]

If anything, it's Jones who's an illegal alien. I haven't seen Rodriguez, but I'd wager that he has more indigenous blood than some Anglo/Welsh (whichever he is) interloper. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

If anything, it's Jones who's an illegal alien. I haven't seen Rodriguez, but I'd wager that he has more indigenous blood than some Anglo/Welsh (whichever he is) interloper. :laugh:

Okay, so you'll be leaving then? Seriously, we've been past this for several hundred years, even the Native Americans aren't raising a stink about it anymore. At some point, centuries past the time that anyone was alive of the people who did it are dead and gone, you have to begin to let go of the things that didn't happen to you.

Me, I'd still be here, since I have Cherokee blood anyhow.

[crin63]

I would say lets send a few illegals to Guantanamo just for grins and giggles but then we would have to pay to feed them and shelter them (not like we aren't already). :coffee:

[Agnapostate]

Okay, so you'll be leaving then? Seriously, we've been past this for several hundred years, even the Native Americans aren't raising a stink about it anymore. At some point, centuries past the time that anyone was alive of the people who did it are dead and gone, you have to begin to let go of the things that didn't happen to you.

This is the same rightist talking point usually advanced against racial reparations. The problem is the failure to understand that any such program is not punitive in nature so much as compensatory. John steals from James and passes it down to his grandson; the deaths of John and James do not change the fact that the stolen property should rightfully be that of James's grandson by inheritance.

We should note that most Mexican and Central/South American immigrants are themselves Native Americans of either pure or mixed blood, with a significant proportion not even speaking Spanish. Of the categorical divisions between North American (excluding Mesoamerica and south) Indian societies, national borders do not parallel them. The Mexican Huichol or the Tarahumara, for example, have more in common with the Apache and the Navajo than they do with the Aztecs, despite the practice of classifying "Mexican Indians" as one group. And the Apache and Navajo have more in common with the Huichol and Tarahumara than they do with the Cherokee or the Iroquois.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/NorthAmericanCulture.png

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/faces01large.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/faces02large.jpg

Now, it's not feasible to literally return all American territory to the indigenous population. However, it's likely that in the absence of British, Spanish, French, Dutch et al. intervention, peaceable relations that facilitated freer or more libertarian migration without the rigid national divisions we now have would have developed (particularly among societies of the same cultural category), as they did among the European "tribes" of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. If so, the national boundaries derived from the unjust forcible and fraudulent acquisition of property that the creation of states in America entailed have no ethical basis.

While Indians are more prevalent in southern Mexico than northern Mexico, and all territory in Mexico south of the central area is Mesoamerican and separate from the "Southwest" category that bands the Navajo and the Huichol, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that through war, bloodshed, liberal revolution against monarchy, and the eventual establishment of peaceful relations between various Amerindian communities, the restrictions on immigration from one portion of America to another would likely not be present. So the gist is that sans British, Spanish, French, and Dutch importation of disease and ethically unjust acquisition (through force and fraud) of territory and productive resources from these Amerindians once they'd been sufficiently weakened by plague and conflict with each other, things would be quite different. And perhaps that arrangement should be honored, as property gained through theft is not rightfully owned at all.


Me, I'd still be here, since I have Cherokee blood anyhow.

Yes, we've all long since noticed that everyone has a Cherokee great-great-grandmother. ;)

[Luna Tick]

This is really dumb. The Sheriff was just doing his job. The suit should be thrown out and Rodriquez should be liable for all court costs because he filed a frivolous suit.

[Trigg]

Agna,

Only Europe has free movement between countries and that is VERY RECENT. Even with that people are Polish, German, English etc. and they claim that ancestry. The European Union has strict rules on who can join and why, financial stability being a biggie.

In Africa where 98% of the population are black there is NO FREE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES. Those countries are run and governed by black people, yet they don't want blacks from other counties invading either.

There are national borders for a reason, resources and national security being two of them. Borders have been shifting for thousands of years through conflict and war, that's just the way it is.

Your Utopian lala land where everyone flits around from country to country paying their taxes and doing a fair days work is just that, lala land. It's never going to happen.

[Luna Tick]

I have some Native American blood. Does that give me the right to immigrate to Mexico without that government's permission? The fact is, having Native American ancestry does not give anyone a free pass over local sovereignty laws. Right now the law reads that it's illegal for someone to sneak into the United States and live and work. End of story. The Sheriff was just enforcing the local laws. It's silly to claim otherwise, which makes the lawsuit frivolous.

[Trigg]

I have some Native American blood. Does that give me the right to immigrate to Mexico without that government's permission? The fact is, having Native American ancestry does not give anyone a free pass over local sovereignty laws. Right now the law reads that it's illegal for someone to sneak into the United States and live and work. End of story. The Sheriff was just enforcing the local laws. It's silly to claim otherwise, which makes the lawsuit frivolous.

Well according to Agno you're a one drop Indian. He doesn't think people like you count.

[CSM]

"While Indians are more prevalent in southern Mexico than northern Mexico, and all territory in Mexico south of the central area is Mesoamerican and separate from the "Southwest" category that bands the Navajo and the Huichol, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that through war, bloodshed, liberal revolution against monarchy, and the eventual establishment of peaceful relations between various Amerindian communities, the restrictions on immigration from one portion of America to another would likely not be present."

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to conclude that immigration restrictions between North American communities could just as well be even more stringent. Of course that would not be a consideration in the posters line of reasoning because it doesn't fit the agenda.

[82Marine89]

If anything, it's Jones who's an illegal alien. I haven't seen Rodriguez, but I'd wager that he has more indigenous blood than some Anglo/Welsh (whichever he is) interloper. :laugh:



I have some Native American blood. Does that give me the right to immigrate to Mexico without that government's permission? The fact is, having Native American ancestry does not give anyone a free pass over local sovereignty laws. Right now the law reads that it's illegal for someone to sneak into the United States and live and work. End of story. The Sheriff was just enforcing the local laws. It's silly to claim otherwise, which makes the lawsuit frivolous.


Well according to Agno you're a one drop Indian. He doesn't think people like you count.

I was born here so that makes me a Native American. (Also a box I check on all forms that ask.) I'm not going anywhere.

[DragonStryk72]

This is the same rightist talking point usually advanced against racial reparations. The problem is the failure to understand that any such program is not punitive in nature so much as compensatory. John steals from James and passes it down to his grandson; the deaths of John and James do not change the fact that the stolen property should rightfully be that of James's grandson by inheritance.

We should note that most Mexican and Central/South American immigrants are themselves Native Americans of either pure or mixed blood, with a significant proportion not even speaking Spanish. Of the categorical divisions between North American (excluding Mesoamerica and south) Indian societies, national borders do not parallel them. The Mexican Huichol or the Tarahumara, for example, have more in common with the Apache and the Navajo than they do with the Aztecs, despite the practice of classifying "Mexican Indians" as one group. And the Apache and Navajo have more in common with the Huichol and Tarahumara than they do with the Cherokee or the Iroquois.

Now, it's not feasible to literally return all American territory to the indigenous population. However, it's likely that in the absence of British, Spanish, French, Dutch et al. intervention, peaceable relations that facilitated freer or more libertarian migration without the rigid national divisions we now have would have developed (particularly among societies of the same cultural category), as they did among the European "tribes" of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. If so, the national boundaries derived from the unjust forcible and fraudulent acquisition of property that the creation of states in America entailed have no ethical basis.

While Indians are more prevalent in southern Mexico than northern Mexico, and all territory in Mexico south of the central area is Mesoamerican and separate from the "Southwest" category that bands the Navajo and the Huichol, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that through war, bloodshed, liberal revolution against monarchy, and the eventual establishment of peaceful relations between various Amerindian communities, the restrictions on immigration from one portion of America to another would likely not be present. So the gist is that sans British, Spanish, French, and Dutch importation of disease and ethically unjust acquisition (through force and fraud) of territory and productive resources from these Amerindians once they'd been sufficiently weakened by plague and conflict with each other, things would be quite different. And perhaps that arrangement should be honored, as property gained through theft is not rightfully owned at all.



Yes, we've all long since noticed that everyone has a Cherokee great-great-grandmother. ;)

No, I have official document level Cherokee blood, thanks. Your whole supposition is again based upon a fight no one is having, no one is disputing, save you, including the cultural and ethnic groups you describe, which means they've accepted it. Plus, again, it has nothing to do with current day. Every country maintains borders. If 12 million of us decided to go to Mexico, and flooded the job market, they'd be stopping us too. It's basic sense.

[HogTrash]

If anything, it's Jones who's an illegal alien. I haven't seen Rodriguez, but I'd wager that he has more indigenous blood than some Anglo/Welsh (whichever he is) interloper. :laugh:
This is the same rightist talking point usually advanced against racial reparations. The problem is the failure to understand that any such program is not punitive in nature so much as compensatory. John steals from James and passes it down to his grandson; the deaths of John and James do not change the fact that the stolen property should rightfully be that of James's grandson by inheritance.

We should note that most Mexican and Central/South American immigrants are themselves Native Americans of either pure or mixed blood, with a significant proportion not even speaking Spanish. Of the categorical divisions between North American (excluding Mesoamerica and south) Indian societies, national borders do not parallel them. The Mexican Huichol or the Tarahumara, for example, have more in common with the Apache and the Navajo than they do with the Aztecs, despite the practice of classifying "Mexican Indians" as one group. And the Apache and Navajo have more in common with the Huichol and Tarahumara than they do with the Cherokee or the Iroquois.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/NorthAmericanCulture.png

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/faces01large.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/faces02large.jpgA few points you may have conveniently overlooked.

[1] Mexico must disagree with you because they strictly enforce immigration laws and aggressively guard their southern Guatemalan border against illegal entry.

[2] Native North Americans are US citizens and permitted unlimited migration in the united states but those from south of the border are not now nor never would have been permitted,

even if the evil white man had never came here because Native North Americans would not have aloud them on their lands...Borders or no borders, they were tribal and very territorial.

[3] I am of Scot-Irish descent but do not have strange fantasies of unopposed entry, unrestricted travel and territorial rights in the UK...Get over it geronimo!
Now, it's not feasible to literally return all American territory to the indigenous population. However, it's likely that in the absence of British, Spanish, French, Dutch et al. intervention, peaceable relations that facilitated freer or more libertarian migration without the rigid national divisions we now have would have developed (particularly among societies of the same cultural category), as they did among the European "tribes" of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. If so, the national boundaries derived from the unjust forcible and fraudulent acquisition of property that the creation of states in America entailed have no ethical basis.

While Indians are more prevalent in southern Mexico than northern Mexico, and all territory in Mexico south of the central area is Mesoamerican and separate from the "Southwest" category that bands the Navajo and the Huichol, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that through war, bloodshed, liberal revolution against monarchy, and the eventual establishment of peaceful relations between various Amerindian communities, the restrictions on immigration from one portion of America to another would likely not be present. So the gist is that sans British, Spanish, French, and Dutch importation of disease and ethically unjust acquisition (through force and fraud) of territory and productive resources from these Amerindians once they'd been sufficiently weakened by plague and conflict with each other, things would be quite different. And perhaps that arrangement should be honored, as property gained through theft is not rightfully owned at all.

Yes, we've all long since noticed that everyone has a Cherokee great-great-grandmother. ;)
Why don't we just eliminate borders all over the world, displace billions of people and allow every original inhabitant of every land to return to their ancestors indigenous roots?

Do you see the problem Aggy?...Your commie utopian indian dream of hunting fishing, sitting around the fire and running around naked ain't gonna happen...The world has advanced too far.

We now live in a thing called civilization and can't turn back and will soon be going to the stars...Maybe someday your people can have their own planet but untill then, welcome to the 21st century, Buck.

[HogTrash]

Originally Posted by Agnapostate
Yes, we've all long since noticed that everyone has a Cherokee great-great-grandmother. ;)By the way, if this was aimed at me you need to add one more "great".

My clan has been here a long-long-long time and we ain't goin nowhere.

[Agnapostate]

Agna,

Only Europe has free movement between countries and that is VERY RECENT. Even with that people are Polish, German, English etc. and they claim that ancestry. The European Union has strict rules on who can join and why, financial stability being a biggie.

National and cultural diversity without rigid state division, the exact structure that I speculate would have probably developed in America sans European intervention (even if through centuries of violence, not, as has been suggested, through sitting around a campfire and passing around the peace pipe).


In Africa where 98% of the population are black there is NO FREE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES. Those countries are run and governed by black people, yet they don't want blacks from other counties invading either.

And unlike Europe, Africa was subject to invasion and colonization from various nations of another continent. Extremely poor example, considering that I was referring to the process of development without demographic-altering intervention.


There are national borders for a reason, resources and national security being two of them.

National borders obviously don't lend themselves to the most efficient resource allocation inasmuch as international trade is a necessary aspect of every developed economy. As for national security, you've not elaborated on that sufficiently for me to even pass judgment on that claim. It strikes me as interesting that the most recent major terrorist attack in the U.S. was conducted by a group of people that were predominantly legal residents, and was conducted, moreover, with the use of aircraft, which could have taken off from any country in sufficiently near proximity to the targets.


Borders have been shifting for thousands of years through conflict and war, that's just the way it is.

Certainly, and my speculation was that in large part through conflict and war but without demographic-altering intervention, a confederation of various national allies such as the EU would have developed in America.


Your Utopian lala land where everyone flits around from country to country paying their taxes and doing a fair days work is just that, lala land. It's never going to happen.

You've not grasped my sentiments at all, apparently.


I have some Native American blood. Does that give me the right to immigrate to Mexico without that government's permission? The fact is, having Native American ancestry does not give anyone a free pass over local sovereignty laws. Right now the law reads that it's illegal for someone to sneak into the United States and live and work. End of story. The Sheriff was just enforcing the local laws. It's silly to claim otherwise, which makes the lawsuit frivolous.

Well, if we hold that legitimate property acquisition is reliant on ethically just transfer, then national sovereignty of any American country is illegitimate because of its basis in forceful and fraudulent obtainment from existing owners. There is no longer any practical means of "returning" this land, and the consequences of an attempt would be negative because of the existence of numerous residents not descended from the indigenous population, but restrictions on the ability of Amerindians to migrate from one part of America to another are active encroachment.


On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to conclude that immigration restrictions between North American communities could just as well be even more stringent. Of course that would not be a consideration in the posters line of reasoning because it doesn't fit the agenda.

It probably is, actually. For one thing, there would most certainly not be divisions among existing national boundaries. That would drastically alter the If Texas had not seceded from Mexico and California not been acquired by the U.S., for example, the usage of the resources in their territory would make Mexico a far wealthier country than the U.S.


I was born here so that makes me a Native American.

Actually, it makes you an anchor baby.


Your whole supposition is again based upon a fight no one is having, no one is disputing, save you, including the cultural and ethnic groups you describe, which means they've accepted it.

I must say that I've perceived something quite opposite. Consider the Mexica Movement (www.mexica-movement.org), for example.


Plus, again, it has nothing to do with current day.

It does, for the reason that I explained. Compensatory principles are at hand rather than punitive ones.


Every country maintains borders.

And technically, none are ethically legitimate because of the acquisition of all territory at one point or another by means of force and fraud. We have to be pragmatic, however, and thus look only to indigenous populations that are actively disadvantaged by historical dispossession.


If 12 million of us decided to go to Mexico, and flooded the job market, they'd be stopping us too. It's basic sense.

But unlike the U.S., Mexico is a heavily Indian country. Even its name indicates that.


A few points you may have conveniently overlooked.

A cursory glance at them suggests that they're ones that I've dismissed as unsound instead.


[1] Mexico must disagree with you because they strictly enforce immigration laws and aggressively guard their southern Guatemalan border against illegal entry.

They certainly do. However, like the U.S., Mexico is a country developed by European encroachment, merely Spanish encroachment instead of British encroachment. And its ruling classes, as you never seem to realize, are predominantly white of Spanish descent.


[2] Native North Americans are US citizens and permitted unlimited migration in the united states but those from south of the border are not now nor never would have been permitted, even if the evil white man had never came here because Native North Americans would not have aloud them on their lands...Borders or no borders, they were tribal and very territorial.

And Mexican and Central American Indian immigrants are Native North Americans, inasmuch as Mexico and Central America are in North America. More than that, however, it seems that you've chosen to entirely ignore the actual crux of my commentary. While there were important territorial divisions, they did not match the current national divisions that exist, as my map should have illustrated. The existence of the Apache on both sides of the border should make that apparent, for example.


[3] I am of Scot-Irish descent but do not have strange fantasies of unopposed entry, unrestricted travel and territorial rights in the UK...Get over it geronimo!

And the majority of Ireland isn't actually in the UK, is it, mick?


Why don't we just eliminate borders all over the world, displace billions of people and allow every original inhabitant of every land to return to their ancestors indigenous roots?

Do you see the problem Aggy?...Your commie utopian indian dream of hunting fishing, sitting around the fire and running around naked ain't gonna happen...The world has advanced too far.

We now live in a thing called civilization and can't turn back and will soon be going to the stars...Maybe someday your people can have their own planet but untill then, welcome to the 21st century, Buck.

As usual, you babble substantially yet understand effectively nothing.


By the way, if this was aimed at me you need to add one more "great".

Is that right? I'll be reporting this to the Stormfront admins, Hoggie; it's cause for you to be removed from some of the more exclusive forums on the site if you're not already. ;)

[Trigg]

=Agnapostate;406095

And unlike Europe, Africa was subject to invasion and colonization from various nations of another continent. Extremely poor example, considering that I was referring to the process of development without demographic-altering intervention.



Fine, we'll use another example. Asian countries have historically only been invaded by other Asian countries, yet they have not joined together in a Union of any kind. Why is that?????? No colonization there except Hong Kong. Also NO demographic altering of the population.

Certainly, and my speculation was that in large part through conflict and war but without demographic-altering intervention, a confederation of various national allies such as the EU would have developed in America.


Your guessing and speculating, again ONLY Europe has joined together as a Union and that is only VERY recent and with MANY requirements.


If Texas had not seceded from Mexico and California not been acquired by the U.S., for example, the usage of the resources in their territory would make Mexico a far wealthier country than the U.S.


Probably not. Just look at Africa, national resources should make that entire Continent wealthy beyond imagining. It isn't.....not because of colonization, but because of corrupt governments. I hate to state the truth, but South Africa and Zimbabwe both did better economically before their "colonial" governments were kicked out.


Back on topic. The man was here illegally, he was deported....end of story. Next time come in legally, no one will have a problem with him, problem solved.

[HogTrash]

Is that right? I'll be reporting this to the Stormfront admins, Hoggie; it's cause for you to be removed from some of the more exclusive forums on the site if you're not already. ;) :eek: Oh God no!...Please don't!...Anything but that!...I beg of you!...Mercy!...Show me mercy! :scared:

:lmao: You certainly are a funny little mudd boy, I'll give ya that. :laugh2:

I'll let ya know when my grass needs cuttin pedro. :bye1:

[Agnapostate]

I don't know why you think applying spic names to me is some kind of mockery; it's not like you'd mock an African-American man by calling him "James" or "Charles." :laugh:

[HogTrash]

I don't know why you think applying spic names to me is some kind of mockery; it's not like you'd mock an African-American man by calling him "James" or "Charles." :laugh:I am so sorry Aggy...The guilt is eating me alive.

Do you suppose you could find it in your heart to forgive me?

Can we be amigos?...I'll even let you fuck my sister. :D

[Agnapostate]

Well, considering that you have all the demeanor of a southerner, I have a feeling I'd just be getting sloppy seconds.

[DragonStryk72]

The compensatory principle you mention has no end date, so it turns into not more than having a permanent payment out to a loan shark. Again, hundreds of years have passed, and strictly speaking, by your own belief, it was never their land to begin with, since no personal property can be established, just like in any anarchy, we can take what we want, because we're stronger, and we can take it from them. Hence why anarchy fails repeatedly, but again, it still wouldn't be theft, by your belief, since they didn't have property to begin with

[SassyLady]

The compensatory principle you mention has no end date, so it turns into not more than having a permanent payment out to a loan shark. Again, hundreds of years have passed, and strictly speaking, by your own belief, it was never their land to begin with, since no personal property can be established, just like in any anarchy, we can take what we want, because we're stronger, and we can take it from them. Hence why anarchy fails repeatedly, but again, it still wouldn't be theft, by your belief, since they didn't have property to begin with

Good point.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/faces01large.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/faces02large.jpg

interesting, since if the Navaho had attempted to "migrate" into Apache territory, the Apache would simply have killed them off....

[krisy]

I live in a county near Butler county and this sheriff is widely respected in this area. He makes a LOT of news. He takes no crap.

How could anyone think that this illegal would have any rights if he isnt a citizen?:dunno: I don't understand where people are coming from with this case,and the 9/11 guys. Not to mention the underwear bomber. Seems plain and simple to me.