THE MARSHAL: PLEASE RIS E .

THE MARSHAL: LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDASUPREME COURT.

PLEASE BE S EATE D .

CH IEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING. THE N EXT CASE O N T HE D OCKET IS THE FLO RI DA BAR V ER SU S MARK STEPHEN GOL D . GOOD MORNI NG .

MAY IT PLEASE T HE COURT , I'M HOPE KEATING O N B EHALF OF THE F LORIDA BAR. THE I SS UE BEF ORE T HI S C OU RT IS W HE TH ER STATE ME NT S CONTAINED IN THE LAW YER' S A DVERTISEMENT, WHICH ARE OTHERWISE IN VIOLATION O F THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, GAIN IMM UN IT Y SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY FIRST APPEARED I N NEWSPAP ER ARTICLES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BEFORE YOUGET INTO THAT, COULD YOU GIVE US S ORT O F A CHRONOLOGICAL SUM MA RY O F WHEN T HE SE A DS F IR ST S TART ED A PPEARING AND MOR E O F THE ESTOPPEL ISSUE, THA T I S WHETHER THE BAR H AD ACTUALLY APPROVED THESE ADS I N THE PAST ?

I DON'T T HINK THERE IS ANY DISPUTE IN THE RECORD THAT THERE WER E PRE VIOU S GRIEVANCE PROCEEDIN GS , B UT THE RECORD IS - - D OE SN 'T GIVE THE DETAILS AS TO W HICH -- WHAT THE A DVER TI SEME NT S EXACTLY WER E , AND WHA T R UL ES WERE AT ISSUE.

JUSTICE: W ELL , THE I SS UE THAT I AM CONCE RN ED A BOUT I S THAT IN THE - - I N T HE DEF ENDANT'S P APER S H ERE , THERE IS AN ASS ERTI ON T HA T THIS A D W HICH I S I N SUBST ANTIALLY SIMILAR FORM HAD BEEN FILED U NDER 4-7 WITH T HE A DVER TI SI NG COMMITTEE AND THAT THE BAR HAD NEVER RAISE D ANY POI NT ABOUT A SUB ST ANTI ALLY SIM ILAR AD P RI OR T O THE T IM E THAT THIS AD WAS RUN . IS THAT NOT C ORRECT ?

THE R EC OR D D OE S S HO W THA T THERE W ER E PRE VIOU S FIN DI NG S O F NO PROBA BL E CAU SE O N A DS T HAT C ONTAIN ED T HE N EWSP APER ARTICLES.

JUSTICE: W HA T I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS W IT H T HE ADVERTISING COMMITTEE OF THE FLORIDA BAR. THE ASSER TION S M ADE T HA T THESE ADS I N A SUB ST ANTI AL LY SIM ILAR FORM P REVI OU SL Y H AD BEEN FILED WITH T HE BAR 'S ADV ERTISING COM MI TT EE U NDER THE PROCEDU RE THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE R UL E FOR PASSING T HESE B EFOR E T HE BAR P RIOR TO THE TIM E T HA T THE Y ARE RUN AS A DV ER TI SEMENT S.

I THINK THAT THE R EC ORD IS I NCOM PL ET E A S T O W HA T NOTIFICATIONS T HE R ESPO ND EN T GOT FRO M T HE F LORI DA B AR , THE ETHIC S I N A DVER TI SING OFFICE AND AS T O W HA T VIOLATIONS . > > JUSTICE: WELL, TEL L U S WHAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT WHAT THE RECORD DOES S HOW I N TERMS OF AND I'M NOT S UR E WE'RE GETTING ACROSS T HE ISSUE THAT WE ARE ASK ING ABOUT . THESE OEN C LOSU RE S - - THE SE E NCLOSURES, M AILING S?

THAT'S CORRECT .

JUSTICE: THE CON TE NT S O F THE SE GO BEFORE THE B AR F OR SOME YEARS B EFORE T HE PROSECUTION OF THESE PARTICULAR VIOLATI ONS I N T HE CASE THAT WE HAVE BEF OR E U S , AND WERE THE C ON TENT S A RE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CONTENTS A PPROVED BY T HE B AR FOR U SE B Y THI S LAW YE R P RIOR TO THIS P RO SE CU TI ON , AN D I F SO, YOU K NOW , HOW F AR B AC K DOE S THAT APPROVAL GO? DO YOU UNDERSTAND MYQUESTION?

I T HINK SO . > > JUSTICE: THE P ROCEDURE I S THEY ARE NOT IN THE B AR AS PART OF THE ADV ERTISI NG SCHEME, THAT L AW YE RS C AN SEND TO A BAR C OM MITT EE O R THE BAR IN TAL LAHA SSEE A ND SAY HERE'S MY P ROPO SE D A DVERTISEMENT OR P RACT IC E.

R IGHT .

JUSTICE: AND IT IS O KAY IN ESSENCE AND THE BAR LOO KS AT IT A ND SAY S I T I S O KA Y O R IT IS NOT O KA Y O R WHA TEVE R. NOW, W AS T HA T P RACTIC E ENG AGED IN IN SOFA R A S THI S PARTICULAR ADVERTISEMENT IS CONCERNED?

YES, SIR, I BELIEVE IT WAS.

JUSTICE: AND HOW FAR B AC K DO WE GO?

I B EL IE VE , I A M N OT EXACTLY SURE, BUT I THINK I T GOES BACK T O A N UM BE R O F YEARS TO THE EAR LY ' 90 s.

JUSTICE: SO WAS THI S ADVERTISEMENT ENDOR SED O R OKAYED BY THE B AR G OI NG B AC K A NUMBER OF YEA RS ?

S IN CE 1 99 6 , I KNO W T HA T THERE HAV E B EE N S EVER AL N OTIFICATIONS AFTER THE AD WAS FILED WITH THE O FF IC E O F ETHICS IN A DV ERTI SI NG , A ND T HE RES PONDENT WAS N OT IF IE D ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT , NO, HIS AD WAS NOT I N COMPLIANCE .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BECAUSE THE RES PONDENT SAY S T HE BAR APPROVED THIS AD IN 2 00 3. WHAT I'M H EARING Y OU SAY I S THAT, N O , THA T NEVER HAPPENED. IN FACT , THERE W ER E N OTIC ES THAT THE AD W AS I MP ROPE R ? THI S SHOULD BE A PRETT Y E AS Y QUESTION.

IN 2 003 THE RE WAS A GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE ON AN A D ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE T HI S , AND A FIN DI NG O F P ROBABL E CAUSE WAS I SSUE D I N 200 3.

CHIEF JUSTICE: S O Y OU R POSITION IS THAT THE B AR NEVER A PPROVED THIS AD?

NOT THE OFFICE O F E TH ICS IN ADVER TISI NG . ON SEVERAL O CCAS IONS , I T WENT TO A G RIEV AN CE C OMMITTEE WHO ISSUE D L ETTE RS OF N O PRO BA BL E C AUSE.

JUSTICE: ALL RIGHT . SOM ETHING THAT IS REL AT IVEL Y SIMPLE SEEMS TO B E V ER Y COMPLICATED HERE I N WHI CH WOULD USUALLY ORA L A RGUMENT IS THE PLACE THAT WE UNCOMPLICATE THINGS T O LET 'S KEEP TRYING. YOU ARE S AYING THAT , NO , T HE BAR N EVER APP RO VE D A N ADVERTISE MENT SIMILAR TO THIS FOR USE BY T HI S L AW YER. LET ME JUS T S TO P R IGHT THERE. IS THAT C ORRECT?

I B EL IE VE A T LEA ST SIN CE 1 996.

JUSTICE: IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT OR IS THAT NOT A CORRECT STA TEMENT?

TO M Y K NO WL EDGE SINCE 1996 THEY DID NOT APPROVE IT.

JUSTICE: IN FACT , WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT AS OPP OS ED TO APPROVING T HIS ADV ERTISEMENT T HE BAR H AS ISSUED R EA LL Y L ETTE RS CAUTIONING THA T T HIS IS A N E THICAL VIOLATION?

THA T IS CORRECT. THE LETTERS OF N O PROBA BL E CAUSE RESULTED FRO M COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST ADS THAT WENT TO THE G RIEV AN CE COMMITTEE , BUT T HE L ETTERS FROM THE OFFICE OF E THIC S I N ADV ERTISING DID NOT APP RO VE THE AD .

CHIEF JUSTICE: DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE N?

Y ES . THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COU RT IS - -. > > JUSTICE: YOU NEED T O GET RIGHT TO THE THI NG HER E BECAUSE WE WERE HALFWAY THROUGH YOUR O RAL A RGUMENT AND WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUTWHAT THE RECORD SHOWED A BOUT THIS PREVIOUS THING. NOW, WHY S HOULDN'T L AWYERS IF THEY GET A N ICE WRITE -U P IN THE NEW SP APER A ND I T I S THE NEWSPAPER T HAT SAY S THING S ABOUT THE M THAT T HE Y THINK MIGHT H EL P T HE M G AI N CLIENTS, WHY S HO ULDN 'T T HE Y BE ABLE TO P UBLI CI ZE T HA T NICE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THA T THEY DIDN'T WRITE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WROTE?

WELL, WHEN T HE N EWSP APER ARTICLES WERE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER P RE SU MABL Y THEY WERE BONAFID E N EWS S TORIES. NOT WRITTEN, PAID FOR O R S OLICITED BY T HE R ESPOND ENT. AND NOT C ONSI DE RE D A N ADVERTISEMENT AND PRESUMABLY THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE BAR T O O BJ EC T T O T HE RESPONDENT'S PARTICIPATION IN THOSE NEWS S TO RIES . AND T HE B AR OTH ER WI SE H AS N O A UTHORITY T O R EG ULAT E NEW S ARTIC LES. BUT S O W HE N T HE A RTIC LE S WERE PUBLISHED IN T HE NEWSPAPER THEY W ER E NOT SUBJECT TO THE BAR RUL ES , BUT THE BAR IS C HA RGED WIT H REGULATING LAWYE R ADV ERTISEMENT, A ND N OW , THOUGH, THE A RT IC LE S A ND WORDS IN THOSE ART IC LES , I N T HOSE NEWS A RTICLES A RE NOW PART OF THE L AWYER'S A DVERTISEMENT . > > CHIEF J US TICE : I S THAT THE BRIGHT-LINE R ULE THE N AS SOON AS THI S NEW SP APER ART ICLE G OE S INT O A N ADVERTISEMENT THEN IT IS IMPROPER OR IS THE BAR I N THIS CAS E BAS IN G I T A LL O N THE F ACT W HICH C ON CERNS M E T HAT T HE SE A RE REA LL Y O LD STORIES. THESE STO RIES A RE OVE R A DECADE OLD SO IT COU LD B E VERY MISLE AD IN G T O A POTENTIAL REC IPIE NT T HA T THE SE WERE RECENT R ESULTS?

NO, THE ISSUE B EF ORE T HE COURT IS NOT THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. IT IS THE CON TE NT O F A LAWYER'S ADVERTISEMENT. THE CONTENT OF THE W OR DS A ND STATEMENTS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THA T ADVERTISEMENT, AND THE RE A RE -- THE BAR R UL ES A RE VER Y CLEAR THAT THERE A RE STATEMENTS IN A LAWYER'S ADVERTISEMENT THAT ARE PROHIBITED. STATEMENTS A BOUT PAS T SUCCESSES, RESULTS O BT AI NED OR STATEMENTS THAT DESCRIBE OR CHARACTERIZE T HE Q UA LITY OF A LAWYER'S S ER VI CES.

JUSTICE: IS THAT BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LAW YE R O R WOULD THIS BE THE C ASE , F OR EXAMPLE, IF A REPORTER WEN T DOWN OR CAME TO T HI S C HAMB ER AND W ATCHED THE PER FO RMAN CE OF A LAW YE R A ND D ES CR IBED THOSE IN THE REP OR TER' S OWN WORDS RATHER THAN A N INTERVIEW WITH THE LAWYER.IS THAT A DISTINC TION OR I S THAT NOT?

NO.

JUSTICE: IT IS NOT? S O THEN IT W OULD BE T HA T A LAWYER CANNOT S EN D A ROUN D A COPY O F T RUTH , N O Q UOTE S , JUST A L EGIT IM AT E N EW SPAP ER ARTICLE, CAN'T S END THAT O UT IF IT C ON TA IN S A LAU DATO RY KIN DS OF MAT ERIALS T HA T WOULD OTHERWISE V IOLATE THE BAR RULES?

THE RUL ES P ERTA IN T O ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A P ERSP ECTIVE C LIENT FOR T HE PUR PO SE O F OBTAINING BUSINESS.

JUSTICE: THE ANSWER IS YES?

YES.

JUSTICE: SO LAWYERS C AN'T C OPY ARTICLES, EVEN I F T HE Y DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS IN THE ARTICLES, AND SEND THOSE TO CLIENTS?

NO, NOT I F T HE Y CON TA IN SOMETHING THAT I S O THER WI SE P ROHIBITED BY - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT IF THEY WERE A PRI OR - - SAY YOU ARE A P ER SO NAL I NJ UR Y LAWYER AND YOU JUST GOT GRE AT R ESULTS AND YOU W ANTED T O SHARE THAT WITH ALL OF Y OU R PRIOR CLIENTS YOU CAN'T WRITE A L ETTER AND SAY HERE IS THIS NIC E NEW SPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT ME ? > > N O , B EC AUSE T HE COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE GOING TOS P RO SPEC TI VE CLI ENT CAN NOT C ONTAIN CER TAIN STATEMENTS AND THAT I S P AS T RESULTS O R PAS T S UC CE SSES O R RES ULTS . BECAUSE THOSE KINDS O F STATEMENTS ARE MISLEADING .

JUSTICE : A NY P ER SO NA L I NJURY FIRM THAT S ENDS AROUND A N EW SLETTE R A ND J US T LIS TS H EA D LINE S F RO M NEWSPAPERS S AYIN G 3 .4 MILLION DOLLARS R ECOVER ED F OR SAM SMI TH , THA T IS -- I S THE - - H AS THE B AR PROSECUTED THAT TYPE OF THING ?

IF T HA T I S SEN T T O A PROSPECTIVE CLIENT F OR THE PURPOSE O F OBTAINING BUSINESS AND IT PER TAIN S T O AND IT FALLS UNDER T HE R UL ES AS SOM ETHING THAT I S S EN T OUT T O S OLIC IT C LI ENTS T HEN ANY REFERENCE TO PAS T SUCCESSES O R RES UL TS I S P ROHIBITED.

JUSTI CE: DID THE B AR APPROVE THIS F OR M T HA T JUSTICE WELLS D ESCRIBES THAT IS THEY HAVE O KAYE D THE M AI LING OF NEW SL ET TERS T O A WIDE AUDIENC E THA T J UST DESCR IBE RECENT CAS ES HANDLED BY THE L AWYE RS , HASN'T THE BAR E NDOR SE D T HAT FORM O F A DVER TI SEME NT ? D O YOU UND ER STAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? A NEW SL ET TER , Y OU KNO W, FROM THE JONES , JONES A ND SMI TH LAW FIRM T HA T S AY S , B OY , I N T HE L AS T S IX M ON TH S HER E I S WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH O UR CASES, AND , Y OU K NO W , W HATEVER , A ND H AS N' T THE B AR APPROVED THAT KIND O F ADVERTISING ?

I A M N OT FAM IL IA R WIT H THAT.

JUSTICE: WELL , W IT H RESPECT TO THIS CASE THIS IS NOT A LETTER TO A F ORME R CLIENT .

RIGHT .

J US TICE: C ALL N OW FOR A F REE C ON SU LTATION.

THIS IS A S OLIC IT AT ION AND THE RULE A PP LI ES T O SOLICITATIONS TO P RO SPECTI VE CLIENTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE INYOUR REBUTTAL B UT J USTICE CANTERO HAS A QUESTION AND THEN JUSTICE Q UINCE. I JUST WANT YOU TO B E AWA RE THAT WE MAY BE U SING A LL O F YOUR REBUTTAL TIME.

JUSTICE: I T SEE MS FROM THE DISCUSSION HERE T HAT T HE DIFFERENCE FOR THE FLORIDABAR IS THE FACT THAT THI S WAS NOT SENT O UT T O F OR ME R CLIENTS O R F RI ENDS AND THAT I BALTIMORE ORIOLES - - NEIGHBORS, IT W AS S EN T O UT SPECIFICALLY TO PEOPLE W HO HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH D OU ?

THAT'S C ORRECT.

CHIEF JUS TICE: J USTI CE QUINCE?

IN THE ADVERTISEMENT THERE ARE STATEMENTS THAT ARE ATTRI BU TA BL E T O THE RESPONDENT AND THEN THERE ARE STATE MENTS T HA T W ER E A CTUALLY MADE BY T HE REPORTER. IS THERE A D IF FE RENC E I N THOSE STATEME NTS ? DOES THE BAR SEE A DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE R ES PO NDEN T A CTUA LLY MADE THESE STATEME NT S O R SOMEO NE E LS E , THE R EPOR TE R A CTUALLY MADE THE STA TE ME NTS ABOUT THE Q UA LITY O F THE WORK THAT WAS DON E?

NO, MA'AM. WHEN THE BAR , I F THE BAR , I F T HE ART IC LE IS NOT F IRST O F A LL IS NOT S OL ICIT ED , P AI D F OR OR W RI TTEN BY THE ATTORNEY IT IS PRESUMABLY NOT AN A DV ER TI SE MENT , BUT WHEN THOSE WORDS ARE P UT INTO AN A DV ER TISE MENT A ND SENT OUT THEY ARE SUB JECT T O A S EC ON DARY R EV IEW.

J US TICE: S O I T I S A S IF THE ATTORNEY IS A DO PT IN G THOSE?

RIGHT, ADOPTED T HOSE STATEMENTS AND MADE T HEM HIS OWN AND NOW THEY ARE C OMING FROM HIM T O S OL ICIT B USIN ES S AND TO S EL L HIS L EGAL S ERVICES. SO AT T HA T P OI NT T HE Y BEC OM E SUBJECT TO A DIF FE RENT STANDARD AND THAT IS THE RULES R EGUL AT ING F LO RIDA LAW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU M AYWANT TO REMAIN T HE - - S AV E THE REMAINING M INUTE F OR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU .

CHIEF JUSTICE: M R. KLU GE R ?

CHIEF J USTICE P ARIENT E , MAY IT PLEASE T HE COURT, ALAN KLUGER O N B EHAL F O F MARK STEPHEN GOLD. Y OUR H ONORS , THERE ARE T HREE ISSUES WE TOUCHED U PO N , T OO , ONE IS THE ESTOPPEL A ND FRANKLY WHAT THE LOWER COURT DID WAS THE COURT, THE REFEREE S AI D T HA T S HE F OUND EVIDENCE O F P RO BABL E E STOPPEL AND IT IS IN T HE ORDER BUT T HAT SHE WAS RULING ON THE CON STITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

JUSTICE: WELL, T EL L M E WHAT HAPPE NE D H ERE WIT H THESE ADS I N S EN DI NG T HE M T O T HE A DV ERTISI NG C OM MITT EE .

THE A DV ERTI SI NG C OMMI TTEE ISN'T B INDING ON THE B AR .

JUSTICE: I U NDER STAND.

SO WHAT THEY TELL Y OU I S IT IS A PROCESS THA T I S KIND OF INTERESTING BECAUSE IT ISALMOST LIKE A REVENUE PROCESS WHERE YOU PAY THEM A FEE.THEY LOOK AT YOUR AD A ND THEN THE A DVISOR Y O PINI ON ISN'T BINDING UPON THE M AND IT CAN STILL GO THROUGH THE G RIEVANCE PROCESS SO W HILE IT IS A N IC E A RG UM EN T T HA T WE COULD RELY O N , I D ON'T THINK THAT INT ELLE CTUA LL Y IT IS A VAL ID A RGUMEN T T HA T I COULD MAKE BECAUSE THE BAR TELLS YOU THAT IT I S ADVISORY AND THE PROCESS, THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS IF YOU WIL L THEN F ER RE TS O UT .

JUSTICE: AT LEAST IT GIVES THE R ES PO NDEN T A G OO D FAITH B ASIS WHEN IT I S PROSECUTED SO SAY , HEY, YOU TOLD ME I COULD D O I T A ND I WON'T DO IT IN THE F UTURE.

BY THE WAY, T HE B AR IN O THER ARE AS HAS E SSEN TIALLY TAKEN THAT POSITION OF STO P. T HIS I SN 'T A C ASE WHERE THEY ARE T RYING TO DIS BAR A LAWYER. THEY ARE TRYING TO STOP A LAWYER FROM ADV ER TI SING , BUT THE ESTOP PE L I SS UE S W ER E INTERESTING BECAUSE THE W AY THIS WHOLE THING STARTED O N THE ENV ELOPE C ON TE NT WIT H THE LANGUAGE IS NOW YOU C AN FIGHT BACK AND IT S AY S TICKET CLINIC. THE WAY THIS S TART ED WAS MR. GOLD MADE A C OMPL AI NT T O THE FLO RIDA BAR G RIEV AN CE COMMITTEE F OR A NOTH ER COMPETING TRAFFIC GRO UP , AND SAID THEY HAV E O N T HI S N OW YOU CAN FIG HT BACK A ND TICKET DEFEN SE T EAM. THIS V IO LATE S THE S AME RUL E THAT THE BAR IS A CC USED MR. GOLD OF . IT FOUND N O V IO LATI ON , A ND A S A RES UL T G OL D T HE N CHANGED HIS ENV EL OP E T O TAK E THE EXACT WORDS T HA T T HE COMPETITORS H AD AND T HEY HAVE GONE THROUGH THE 17T H JUDICIAL CIRCU IT GRIEV AN CE PROCESS. AFTER THAT, IN 1 99 8 , THE G RIEVANCE COM MITTEE FOUND THAT THE S PE CIFIC LAN GU AGE ON MR. GOL D' S S ELF- SEAL IN G ENV ELOPE DID NOT R EVEA L THA T THE RECIPIE NT H AD REC EI VE D A TRAFFIC TICKET. THE GRIEVANCE COM MITTEE BASED THE D ETERMINATION, I'M READING FROM THE REPORT, ON THE FACT THAT MANY C IT IZ ENS REGULARLY RECEIVE UNSOLICITED JUNK MAIL WHI CH DOES NOT REFLECT A NY SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECIPIENT'S - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THEOUTSIDE OF THE ENVELOPE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HOW ABOUT,THOUGH, THIS IS WHAT CONCERNS ME.

I HAVE A N EW SP AP ER ARTICLE ALSO THE NEX T GRIEVANCE C OMMITTEE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT WHA T YEAR WERE THESE N EWSPAPER ARTICLES WRITTEN?

I THINK THE LAT E ' 80 s.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HE WAS 3 2 YEARS OLD AT THE T IME AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE FLORIDA BAR DOE SN 'T W AN T LAWYERS TO TALK A BOUT RESULTS O BT AI NE D I S BEC AU SE IT COULD G IVE PRO SP ECTIVE CLIENTS A FALSE SENSE THA T THEY ARE GOING TO GET THE SAME RESULTS. NOW, I'M NOT SUR E WHE TH ER I AGREE OR DISAGREE W IT H THA T , B UT HERE THE P ROBL EM I HAVE IS THAT THE SE ARE ARE V ER Y OLD ARTIC LE S . IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE ADVERTISEMENT THAT INDICATES THAT T HESE A RE ACT UA LLY 17-YEAR-OLD ART IC LE S T O S HO W THAT THIS IS N OT A - - T HI S IS S IMPL Y