The Saga of Chris Barela, Jailer

Sometimes everyone's wrong.

Take the saga of Chris Barela, jailer.

He's a likable guy, but has a very mixed record at the Doña Ana County Detention Center. 

Years ago people alleged serious misconduct by him, some criminal. Internal county reports concluded he'd misappropriated county resources. (Astonishingly, higher-ups took no action on those reports.) Barela also seemed to exhibit extensive favoritism in running the jail. I wrote about some of this in 2013. I also investigated some charges I concluded were nonsense, and some I couldn't get to the truth on. 

Criminal investigations started and stalled. I doubt the initial investigators did all they should have. Some of the most promising charges never got acted upon until it was too late. Then Mr. Barela ran afoul of Sheriff Kiki Vigil (who'd gotten significant campaign contributions from two private-prison executives from Louisiana). DASO investigated vigorously – then, in December 2015, (a) made a big public show of Barela's arrest; (b) took him all the way to Lea County to book him; and (c) took over the jail the day they arrested him. 

A judge ordered Vigil to give back control of the jail. Criminal charges were eventually dropped. DASO's handling of the arrest and booking helped Barela get a $201,000 settlement check without even filing suit. Some said Barela got the easy settlement because of connections. Others said DASO's conduct under Vigil was so far off the mark that Barela could have won far more by suing.

More recently, a jail officer complained that Commissioner John Vasquez had told him in Santa Fe that Vasquez was going to get rid of Barela and then-County Manager Julia Brown. Vasquez allegedly suggested that the jail officer might get Barela's job. If the story is accurate, Vasquez was conducting himself inappropriately.

Barela served a tort claims notice against the County over Vasquez's alleged comments.

But acting like a horse's hind end isn't always a crime or even actionable. Barela's tort claim notice speaks of defamation, a legal subject I actually know a little about. From what I've read and heard, Barela has a steep uphill battle. First of all, for a “public figure” like Barela to prevail, he must prove Vasquez made false statements of fact that Vasquez knew or really should have known were false. The statements must be of facts. Opinions won't cut it. Nor will threats to fire someone, or statements that someone should be fired. That is, calling the jail “horrible” and saying “You should get rid of Barela” are nonstarters.

Further, if Vasquez said that Barela committed crimes, that's either true or such a reasonable mistake that Barela's lawsuit should fail. There are written reports that strongly suggest Barela committed crimes. That he wasn't prosecuted in time is irrelevant. Vasquez would have to have said something extra special – claiming it was fact – for Barela to prevail. I'm not even sure the County would be on the hook for Vasquez's conduct in Santa Fe.

 

Then a week ago Barela was hit with four misdemeanor charges of possession of marijuana.

In context, these charges initially look like harassment. But one knowledgeable source says the officer who probably okayed the operation has integrity and isn't the Sheriff's pawn. Although using undercover “reverse transactions” to bust someone for personal-use marijuana looks odd, my source says there may be more to come. Who knows?

But it could end Barela's charmed career as jailer. Smoking a few joints is a yawner; but dealing with drug dealers, who may sell other substances and could end up detained, will raise concerns about further favoritism.

                                                             -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 23 July, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.   KRWG will also air a spoken version periodically during the week.]

[I initially ended the column stressing the relative pettiness of busting a guy for buying small amounts of marijuana.   As a matter of criminal law, it is petty.  But if I were in the county administration, thinking about terminating Mr. Barela, I'd have to take the incident more seriously.  First of all, it's a[nother] violation of law.  Secondly, as I note in the column, if proven it establishes that he conspires with drug dealers to break laws, and some of those drug dealers could end up in the Detention Center, possibly charged with selling to kids or with selling some less benign substance than weed.  (And in the employment context, his employers shouldn't be limited to the appropriately high standard of proof for criminal convictions, "beyond a reasonable doubt," but to a lower standard in which they can act if reasonable evidence convinces them that he did it.)   Third, in my view Mr. Barela has demonstrated a tendency toward favoritism in running the detention center.]

[At the same time, authorities should be alert to whether or not there was inappropriately selective law enforcement here.  As noted, someone I trust strongly believes there wasn't.  But people can be wrong in their trust of colleagues.  Too, I've heard one credible, first-hand account of what appeared to me a tendency by Sheriff Vigil toward selective law enforcement, unrelated to Barela.  (Of course, one could reasonably argue that a crime is more serious when committed by someone in charge of folks accused of crimes, often drug-related crimes, so that a somewhat heightened interest in marijuana purchases by Barela would not necessarily be improper.)]

[It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.  Barela has excellent and experienced defense counsel.]

Further Thoughts on the County's Settlement with Chris Barela

The recent op-ed defending the County's $201,000 settlement with Detention Center Director Chris Barela was sincere and made some valid points. The County Commission genuinely feels it dodged an expensive bullet by settling with Barela. 

But questions remain.

In late 2013, it appeared that Barela had committed breaches of duty that might constitute crimes. Some were reported to authorities by a commissioner and others. Some had been reported to county management earlier, in detailed writings.

A state police investigation ensued. Too much time passed. Some say that the state police sat on it. At least one state police source suggested it was the District Attorney's fault. Eventually DASO investigated. 

Sheriff Kiki Vigil probably should have recused himself. He was already at odds with the County Manager and Commission. Two of his most generous campaign contributors ran private prisons, we later learned. (See March 2016 column.) I've learned since that Vigil articulated (and may still hold) an intention to take over the Detention Center. 

Vigil was not the ideal person to investigate Barela; and the showy arrest, and transportation of Barela to a distant county were unnecessary. 

Still, that investigation by two DASO deputies was thorough. While some of the apparently criminal conduct was time-barred and couldn't be prosecuted now, the investigation uncovered evidence of other possible violations. 

Barela is legally innocent of crimes; but we can still question his conduct and that of other public officials. 

Commissioner Billy Garrett's op-ed takes too much comfort from the grand jury's failure to indict Barela. If prosecutors felt some charges wouldn't sufficiently impress a criminal trial jury, that doesn't mean the alleged actions weren't taken. Statutes of limitations prevent criminal charges, but not administrative discipline. Further, as neither commissioners nor I sat on that grand jury, we don't know why it made certain choices, or even whether it heard all the witnesses it should have heard.

I can't make a reasoned decision on Mr. Barela's guilt unless and until I read the entire investigatory file. I won't rely on others' varying accounts of the facts.

A seasoned magistrate, who has a law degree and is not known (at least by me) to be aligned with any party in county government's civil war, signed the warrants. A seasoned and hard-working prosecutor believed this was a good case. These facts would have weakened Barela's false-arrest claim.

I know too much and too little. I know that Vigil had extraneous reasons to want Barela arrested and convicted, but did those reasons motivate the Sheriff's (mis)conduct? I know that other officials might wish to rub Vigil's nose in this mess by settling generously with Barela; but did those wishes help bring about the settlement? 

I watched the County fight tooth and nail against other employees. It offered no viable settlements to Jorge Granados or Kim Stewart. When two juries gave them ringing endorsements, the County appealed, on dubious grounds. (New Mexico Association of Counties was apparently making decisions in those cases, not the County. NMAC invoked a contractual exclusion to refuse coverage against Barela's claim, leaving the County on its own. Thus it's probably not fair to conclude that the County dealt more generously with Barela because he was one of the gang or knew where the bodies were buried.)

Did an overzealous Vigil screw this up? Did political considerations lessen prosecutorial vigor? Was embarrassing Vigil a motive for the settlement or just a happy by-product for some county officials?

I don't know. I do know that Barela is neither as evil as some detractors charge nor as guiltless as some supporters say. Most of us aren't.

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers this morning, Sunday, 11 September.  It's also up on the newspaper's website (supposed to be, anyway) and will soon be up on KRWG-TV's website.]

[September 11!  It snuck up on me this year, that this was the 15th anniversary of that terrible morning.  I was actually in the Library of Congress that morning, researching.  An underground passage away from Congress.  They told us we had to leave -- but not why.  But people knew.  As I motorcycled away from the Capitol, toward where I stayed, there was a humongous traffic jam, of course.  I was grateful for the motorcycle's small size and maneuverability.  At supper that night, we could see the smoke from the Pentagon, still.  For days, people tended to stay in their houses, and numerous military helicopters swarmed overhead.]
[The next morning I motorcycled downtown.  Almost no one was out, except police and military folks.  I had to park further from the Lincoln Memorial than usual.  Security.  But I could walk to it. It was dawn.  None of the usual tourists and joggers.  Just me and the cops and soldiers -- and this one guy, doing his job.  While everyone else was trembling at home, in fear of going down to where the bad guys might strike again, he was just doing his job:]

[I should have written about September 11th in this morning's column.  And a glance at the morning paper, in which Steve Pearce misuses the heroism of everyday people by suggesting it shows that everything is Barack Obama's fault, tells me I'll remedy that omission next Sunday.]

Crazy Week in County Government Raises More Questions Than It Answers

*Should Doña Ana County jailer Chris Barela have been arrested?

Yes. I don't say Barela should be convicted. I haven't seen all the evidence; and conviction requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I have seen enough to believe he should be charged. I'd seen enough years ago. (So had county officials and the state police. Someone's inaction let the statute of limitations pass on some of Barela's alleged crimes.) 

*Will Others Be Charged? Investigators note “the investigation is ongoing,” but they also note that charging documents mentioned some other names. We know that folks including John Caldwell and eventually Julia Brown received reports on Barela's alleged misconduct and didn't have him prosecuted or, apparently, discipline him. (Did they stop some alleged misconduct?) Does that mean they've “obstructed justice” or become “accessories”? I'm not a criminal lawyer and haven't investigated fully.

*Did the Sheriff Act Prudently and Lawfully in taking over the jail? Tougher question than either side will concede.

Sheriff says yes, as a conservator of the peace under Section 4-41-2. Two supporting arguments: (1) that prisoners might riot upon hearing that their jailer was accused of misusing their money, and Barela hadn't implemented contingency planning for his absence, so that action was required for safety; and (2) jail was a crime scene, with others (perhaps including Barela's superiors) possibly involved in wrongdoing, so that not to act would be turning the jail over to suspects.

County Attorney Nelson Goodin says, “We didn't believe he had the authority” and that if Vigil felt he had to take this action he could have applied to the court, as for control of any crime scene. County also says contingency planning was in place and adequate; but a DASO source says interviews with jail personnel proved otherwise. DASO also notes the Sheriff's “team” included experienced corrections personnel, current and retired, approved by the State Director of Corrections.

*Didn't the Judge Find the Sheriff Acted Illegally? Yes and No. The County applied for an Order ex parte (with the Sheriff not represented). Judge Arrieta watered down the order, signed it, and set a December 18 hearing on whether to continue the order. Technically, he found that the County was “likely to prevail” – but without hearing the Sheriff's side. Probably no one will bother to argue December 18 because the issue will be “moot”: whether the Sheriff was right or wrong in taking over the jail temporarily will be academic. 

 

*Should County Commissioners have delayed renewing County Manager's contract after being forewarned that Barela would be arrested soon and that other arrests were possible? The vote was 4-1. 

*Did the Commissioners violate the open meetings law? Depends: was this an “emergency meeting?” Legally, an emergency requires “unforeseen circumstances that if not addressed immediately will likely result in injury or damages to persons or property or substantial financial loss to the public body.”

Certainly the situation was unforeseen. Did having DASO in charge of the jail for 48-72 hours threaten to do the requisite damage?

Goodin said “we looked at it fairly extensively” and that he was “pretty confident” they'd reached the right answer. (One commissioner was insufficiently reassured by Goodin's expression of confidence and refused to participate.) Goodin added that law requires a report to the AG within ten days, and the County will do that. 

*Why can't reasonably intelligent public officials, presumably of good will and with our interests in mind, cooperate a great deal more effectively than this? Beats me. Everyone on both sides makes very strong arguments why s/he's right; but county government still threatens to become a sideshow.

                                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, December 13 (which would have been my mother's 95th birthday, and I wish she were hear to read the column]) in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and will appear later today on the KRWG-TV website's "Local Viewpoints" section.]

It's odd to feel, moments after sending off a column, that although everything I've written is accurate, to the best of my knowledge, the column seems decidedly more sympathetic to one side in the controversy than I feel. But that's how I felt with this one.

Why? First of all, because while I discussed a lot of issues and legal points and what-not, and faithfully reflected what some people said on each side, I didn't voice some gut feelings. One of those is that Billy Garrett and Wayne Hancock are damned good public servants. Whether I agree with them on every issue or not, they're dedicated, hard-working, open-minded, and caring – and neither is in it for the money or for his political future. Neither deserves the shit that gets hurled at him.  (In fact, both Hancock and I initially reported to law enforcement certain allegations of criminal conduct by Mr. Barela.)  I would hate to see the conflict with the Sheriff distract from their work.
Secondly, although I support DASO and agree with some of the Sheriff's complaints, and have great personal trust in some of the officers working with him, there's just an extra level of truculence in the discussions we've heard lately. Usually that kind of extra truculence means something more is going on than simply a debate about policy. One side (or both) has some hidden agenda or motive. Could be as simple as long-suppressed anger by deputies that they aren't as well paid as they feel they should be, or that they're stretched too thin in a rather vast county. Could be something more. I don't claim to know. I just smell something. Don't know what it is yet.

Third, in interviewing both sides I should have explored with Sheriff Vigil whether or not he should now recuse himself from the investigation, or should have done so. Investigating Mr. Barela is one thing. I'm unaware of any bad history between the two. The State Police didn't seem to have gotten much done, for reasons I haven't yet identified. Someone needed to carry the investigation forward. 

Maybe the same is true as to Ms. Brown and others; but there, at least arguably, Vigil shouldn't be supervising the investigation. There's been a very public history of Vigil's quarrels with Debra Weir (Human Resources), and with Ms. Brown when she jumped in on Weir's side. Now it isn't as if Sheriff Vigil were the judge in this matter, where he would obviously have no choice but to step aside. He's investigating. Maybe it's okay, because the ultimate decision on any charges would be made by D.A. Mark D'Antonio, not Sheriff Vigil. 
But although I've disagreed with Ms. Brown often enough, and my mind is surely not closed to the possibility she could have acted illegally, I'd feel more comfortable if someone were investigating her who had neither been sitting in her lap nor poisoning her coffee last week. Nothing in the foregoing should be taken as reflecting doubt on Vigil's integrity. He just ought to remove himself from having that integrity unnecessarily tested. It would look better.

At the same time, certain aspects of the Sheriff's side of this needed expression. One was that although they may be wrong, his investigators honestly and probably reasonably see other county officials as persons of interest. Another was that although I don't know whether or not whether the statute cited by the Sheriff authorized his action in taking over the jail, it was unfair to let unknowing readers assume that Judge Arrieta had acted after hearing each side make its best arguments. Rather, as Mr. Goodin readily acknowledges and most trial lawyers would know, the order was issued after only one side's story got told, and was intended as a temporary order pending a fairer and fuller examination of the facts and the law. 

Too, I'm put off by some of county management's tactics -- such as removing information officer Kelly Jamison, whom all sides agree is a great asset, from DASO temporarily -- ostensibly to prevent her from experiencing a conflict-of-interest but obviously to punish the Sheriff in a petty way.  Remind him who's boss, legally, over DASO employees.  Fortunately she's been returned to DASO.

Another observation worth making is that just as wars drown out a lot of subtle differences in people's pre-war positions on whether or not there should be a war, folks who get drawn into battles (like this current one in county government) quickly find themselves pushed toward the extremes, not only less and less able to accept opposing arguments but less and less able even to listen meaningfully to anyone “on the other side.” Inevitably that saddens us non-combatants. Not only because unnecessary friction is not conducive to a harmonious and peaceful life but because truth also tends to be an early casualty, and each side's inability even to realize the possible sincerity of opponents makes productive discussion awfully difficult.

I'm not on either side, although I have friends and people I trust on both sides. 

Detention Center Investigation Heats Up -- Years Later than it Should Have?

Internal reports suggest that Detention Center Director Chris Barela may be guilty of misuse of public funds, and perhaps of crimes.

I don't pre-judge him. I do ask why it's taken so long for us to reach this point in the investigation, In late 2013, I wrote about these matters and discussed them with law enforcement. At least one Doña Ana County Commissioner also contacted the DA. The State Police began an investigation.

In two different subpoenae, the state police sought internal reports on Barela. Then-County Counsel John Caldwell objected that the reports were protected by attorney-client privilege. By early 2014 some judge should have decided whether or not the privilege protected the documents from the subpoenae – and perhaps whether invoking that privilege was proper when we are arguably the County Counsel's real client.

Lawyers and law professors have written extensively about the question of who is a city or county attorney's client. The mayor or manager? The council or commission? The public? Some combination, depending on circumstances? These can be complex questions. The public nature of the job raises considerations and requires choices that Exxon's in-house counsel doesn't confront.

To me and to many County employees, the County administration seemed dominated by a clique of high-level administrators who watched each other's backs and valued loyalty to the clique above loyalty to the public good. It was widely believed that people the “bosses” trusted could get away with anything, while people they didn't could get fired for trivial or trumped-up reasons. Trials, including Granados (2013) and Stewart (2015), explored the situation. Two different juries heard from both sides and reached very similar conclusions: they were appalled and angered by the portrait of County administration that emerged. (The Slevin jury had something to say about Mr. Barela's management of the detention center.)

Caldwell was central to the alleged clique. Many people said, “Caldwell really runs the County.” Employees and even Commissioners complained that he intimidated them or tried to.

County Manager Julia Brown and County Counsel Nelson Goodin arrived after the events the trials concerned. But they've continued to refuse to hand over certain documents on Barela, despite grand jury subpoenae. (They've also provided some documents, including a CD with a year's worth of purchase orders.) They apparently will provide former auditor Milton Duran's report on Barela by the subpoena deadline for that.

Whoever wins the attorney-client privilege conflict, I'm wondering why we're messing around with these issues at least two years after law enforcement started investigating. Duran's audit was in 2009! (I'm told there was also an even earlier report.) County Commissioners are appalled by the delay – and by the apparent lack of oversight of the Inmate Welfare Fund. Some of these issues were finally aired in a work session Tuesday.

Barela may have committed crimes. If he did, will the statute of limitations run out because the County was stiffing the State Police and/or D.A.'s Office and no one pushed back hard enough? The report I've seen certainly points toward questionable conduct.

The State Police got two subpoenae served seeking the internal reports, but no motion to enforce those was filed. The D.A. says he referred the matter to the State Police, understood there were some problems, indicated that lawyers in his office were available to deal with those problems, then didn't hear further for quite awhile. He and DASO are definitely pushing it now. (There's certainly some intra-governmental tension: some on the investigating side call the attorney-client claim nonsense and one labeled Brown a liar.) I suspect a motion will get filed this week.

Meanwhile the State Auditor reportedly will start investigating in a few months.
                                                         -30-
[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 20 September.]


[ I wrote about part of the problem in a December 2013 column and have mentioned it elsewhere.  Issues include alleged use of Aramark employees for non-county work while they were being paid by the County, possible misuse of the inmate welfare fund, and other complaints.]

County and Jail Employees Privately Question how the Detention Center is Being Run

Twice last week people asked me about the County's deficit and the huge Slevin verdict. They asked, “Why didn't heads roll?”

Fact is, some county employees opined privately that Detention Center Manager Christopher Barela should have been fired well before the Slevin trial.

The jury socked Barela with $3.5 million in punitive damages. The overall verdict of around $22 million led to a settlement for more like $15 million, of which the County paid half.

But lower-ranking county employees, who fear retaliation and won’t let their names be printed, point to longer-term problems, including alleged favoritism and an allegedly dubious relationship with a vendor. (Independent contractor Aramark employs Barela’s younger brother, and Aramark employees have allegedly spent parts of their shifts working at the boxing gym where Barela coaches.)

Jail officers point to Barela’s special treatment of jailed relatives and friends, including David Peña and convicted murderer Moses Mancheca, Barela’s nephew.

Barela’s great love is the PAL Boxing Gym. Peña was a young boxer there. He got hired at the Detention Center. While on probation he survived two disciplinary issues that one long-time officer said would have gotten most people fired. The same officer said Peña later quit in lieu of attending a termination hearing.
In February Peña tried to kidnap his ex-girlfriend from in front of her place of work on Amador Street. It was his second arrest, and violated a restraining order imposed after the first.

Peña was isolated for his own protection from inmates who had known him as a jailer. A long-time officer says the isolation was right and proper, but that where he was isolated wasn’t.

Peña was allowed to stay in the medical wing. That was allegedly Barela’s decision, overriding the judgment of the Health Care Lieutenant and the Classification Lieutenant. If so, it also allegedly violated written policies against giving preferential treatment to friends and family, or even appearing to do so, and against using one’s position of authority to get an inmate preferential treatment.

Officers had been trying unsuccessfully for two years to get televisions in that area Within three days of Peña’s incarceration, holes were drilled and a TV was installed in Peña’s single-man cell (though not in a nearby four-man cell), allegedly on Barela’s order . One officer called it “direct favoritism.” ( I wrote this shortly after the incident. I assume the neighboring cell also has a TV by now.)

Barela denies favoritism. He told us they had been looking for a way to put a TV in such cells, which are not as tall as normal cells. That means a destructive inmate could reach the TV. He said that once they found a TV they hoped could withstand attack, they wanted to experiment. The first inmate they spoke to said he didn’t want a TV. The second was highly destructive. Barela said Peña just happened to be the next chance to test a TV.

Barela also allegedly made a change to accommodate his brother Ronnie, who had been arrested for a third DWI. There were no curtains on showers. This fact troubled Ronnie. Very soon some curtains appeared. Some subordinate officers viewed this as favoritism.

A few years ago, Barela’s nephew Moses Mancheca was charged with first-degree murder. Normally, such prisoners are housed in maximum security. As one officer put it, “A man looking at twenty years or more has a lot less to lose. And they’re more of a predatory type inmate than a prey type.”

Mancheca was reportedly permitted to roam among medium security prisoners.

Barela says the decision on Mancheca was made by the classification officer, based on published criteria, and that he didn’t participate.

Barela denied knowledge of an investigation of his relationship with Aramark, an independent contractor at the Detention Center.

Aramark employs Ronnie Barela. Chris Barela says that although Ronnie got his job at Aramark during Chris’s tenure at the Detention Center, there’s no connection.

Other officers say Aramark would have fired Ronnie but for Chris's position. One, asked whether Aramark employed a brother of Chris Barela’s, replied, “Oh, you mean the one they’re scared to fire.” Another said Aramark changed Ronnie Barela's job after his third DWI conviction, but would likely have fired anyone else.

Officers also allege that Aramark employees, sometimes as part of their shifts at the Detention Center, work at the boxing gym.

Documents show two Aramark employees admitted they work at the Detention Center, apparently on the County’s nickel.

A commissioner reported this issue to new District Attorney Mark D’Antonio for investigation, and D’Antonio passed it on to the New Mexico State Police. Agent Clint Norris was reportedly investigating this and other issues.

That was months ago. The investigation appears to have stalled. Officer Norris failed to respond to several phone messages. When asked, Commissioners Wayne Hancock and David Garcia confirmed their understanding that Norris was assigned to investigate, but said they’d received no report. When I asked D’Antonio recently, he said he hadn't heard back but would check with the investigator. (Calls to D’Antonio late last week and early this week have yielded no further information.)

Then, just at this column's deadline I spoke with Agent Norris.  He said, "It's still under investigation.  There's been some road blocks we've run into that I've been trying to push through." He'd also been called out of the area on other business during the past several months.  He said he couldn't estimate when the investigation might wrap up -- that of course he hoped to wrap it up within a few more weeks, "but couldn't swear to it." He did not, of course, specify the road-blocks or divulge any specific information regarding his investigation.

We deserve to know the truth.



                                                                       -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, December 15th.  It represents my opinions, not the newspaper's.]  

[I'd postponed publishing this column, for various reasons, for months.  I should say that in my discussion with Barela himself he was gentlemanly and courteous and said some good things about running a prison; and I['m well aware of the challenges he faces in his job; but the problems discussed in the column -- and a couple of others I didn't feel sufficiently knowledgeable about to include in the column -- need a fair and thorough investigation.  I hope Agent Norris is giving them that, and have no reason to believe he isn't.   It was reassuring finally to talk to him.  However, if we don't see some coherent resolution of this soon, that will be troublesome.  

I believe Mr. Barela's contract may be up for renewal soon.  Both he and we would be well-served by seeing the fruits of Agent Norris's work sooner rather than later.]