April 19, 2026 • no comments

Copying vs. Plagiarism: A Recent Illustration—Grau vs. Hernandez on Milei

Related

Oscar Grau has been a relentless critic of Javier Milei,1 as have other libertarians.2 Now Miguel Hernández has posted the article “Anatomy of a libertarian fraud” (April 16, 2026), another criticism of Milei, and announced it in a post on X. In response, Grau, who has been critical of libertarians who have vocally supported Milei, wrote:

Miguel Hernández has essentially published a book that plagiarizes all the work I have done on Milei over the past two years. The title he has chosen is even ironic, since most of his book is actually my own work. That is, he is also a fraud.

Others chimed in claiming that Grau has no complaint since IP is illegitimate. One wrote: “There is no thing such as intellectual property in anarcho-capitalism. You should be happy that your ideas are spreading.”; another wrote “Oscar, do you defend intellectual property?”

This brings up an interesting illustration of the issue of IP and its relation to plagiarism.

First, we must note that plagiarism and copyright have nothing to do with each other. Just because plagiarism is wrong in some sense does not mean that copyright law is justified, nor does the illegitimacy of copyright mean that plagiarism is immune from criticism. Copyright infringement does not imply plagiarism; and plagiarism does not imply copyright infringement. For example, you can copy someone’s book and keep their name on it; it is not “plagiarism” to sell or distribute a copy of a Harry Potter novel, but it would presumably infringe the the author’s copyright. If you sell or distribute a copy of the Moby Dick or Hamlet, it is neither plagiarism (since you are not pretending to be the author) nor copyright infringement (since these works are in the public domain).

The mistake of connecting or equating plagiarism and copyright infringement is made most often by those defending copyright law. But it can be made also by those opposing copyright law. See my writings linked above on this.

Grau’s is accusation that Hernández has plagiarized Grau’s work has nothing to do with copyright. I asked Grok to clarify what definition it was using for plagiarism and what Hernández could have done to avoid the charge. I append the report below, but here is my own quick summary.

First, as noted above, plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright.

So what is plagiarism? Dictionary definitions say something like “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.” I would not use the word “taking” since nothing is “taken,”3 but this basically means copying of another’s work without attribution, giving the impression that you are the original author. It should be noted that this might be dishonest or unethical but it does not imply fraud—someone might be “a fraud” but this is loose terminology; committing plagiarism, lying, and so on does not necessarily mean fraud in the legal or libertarian legal sense has been committed; this term “fraud” is thrown around too carelessly, usually but libertarian retards defending IP on the grounds that IP law can be based on our opposition to fraud. It cannot.4

But as Grok notes,

Plagiarism encompasses more than verbatim copying. It includes:

  • Using another’s ideas, structure, framework, chronology, or distinctive analysis and presenting them as original.
  • Close paraphrasing, translation, or recompilation of substantive content.
  • Failing to provide adequate, specific credit for borrowed elements

That is the problem with Hernández’s piece. Now I have noted that there is no general obligation to give attribution, but “social convention may require attribution and credit where this is feasible and possible and useful.”5 That is the case here.

The Grok analysis goes on:

In this case, the lack of literal word-for-word copying means it is not simple copy-paste plagiarism. However, the heavy reliance on Grau’s intellectual scaffolding — without precise citations for those elements — qualifies as plagiarism by adaptation and translation. Updating data and writing in Spanish does not create sufficient originality when the core template remains the same.

What Hernandez Could Have Done to Avoid the Issue

To produce an ethically sound work:

  • Explicit framing: Clearly state early on that the article “builds directly upon and updates Oscar Grau’s foundational Rothbardian, Hoppean, and monetary analyses from 2024–2025, extending them with 2025–2026 data and Argentine context.”
  • Targeted citations: Add footnotes or in-text references throughout, e.g., “Following Grau’s Rothbardian checklist in LewRockwell (May 2024)…” or “As detailed in Grau’s ‘How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank’ (Unz, Dec 2025)…”
  • Direct quotations where appropriate: Use quotation marks for key phrases or conclusions from Grau, followed by updates or extensions.
  • Substantial original contribution: Introduce new primary analysis, data interpretation, or angles beyond mere updating to justify the piece as more than a recompilation.
  • Transparent labeling: If heavily derivative, title or subtitle it as a “synthesis and update” of Grau’s work and credit him prominently.

More quotation marks and footnotes would help for specific lifts, but the deeper solution is transparent acknowledgment of intellectual debt for the structural backbone. A single appreciative paragraph is a good start but insufficient when the overlap is this extensive.

Now to his credit, in his pieze, Hernández writes:

Among these authors , Oscar Grau , a musician and piano teacher, stands out . He is the editor of the Spanish-language section of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s official website and, since May 2024, has published a systematic and rigorous series of articles dissecting Milei’s movement. I have also been influenced by him in continuing my criticisms of the government. His “Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei” (in two parts) and his “Hoppean Dissection of Javier Milei,” published on LewRockwell.com and republished by the Mises Institute, constitute the first sustained, technically serious, and doctrinally coherent analysis of the Milei phenomenon from an orthodox Austro-libertarian perspective internationally (something we Argentinians have not achieved).

But this makes it even more inexplicable that Hernández did not provide clearer acknowledgement of the works of Grau that he is drawing on. He was clearly aware of it. Why not simply be transparent? I do see this all the time in amateur libertarian scholarship. I remember noticing similarities to Hoppe’s argumentation ethics in Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behaviour; others have noticed this too. He does not bother to mention Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. This is at the least poor scholarship. It’s not a big deal because I view Molyneux’s UPB as a poor-man’s argumentation ethics and largely irrelevant, but I did notice it.6

In any case, this reference by Hernández to Grau’s earlier work does not do enough to avoid plagiarism. As Grok summarizes:

Does this undermine the accusation of plagiarism?

It partially mitigates the claim of total non-attribution, but it does not eliminate the issue of plagiarism by translation and close adaptation. Here’s why:

  • What the mention actually does: It gives general credit to Grau for pioneering a rigorous critical series on Milei from a paleo/Rothbardian/Hoppean perspective. It acknowledges influence on the author’s own “criticisms of the government” and positions Grau’s Rothbardian and Hoppean dissections as foundational in the international (English-language) sphere. This is a form of name-dropping and broad homage, and it shows the author is aware of Grau’s work and is not trying to hide his existence.
  • What the mention does not do:
    • It does not attribute specific ideas, structures, arguments, checklists, or analyses to Grau.
    • There are no footnotes, hyperlinks, or direct citations pointing to Grau’s actual articles (no links to the LewRockwell pieces, no “as Grau argued in Part I…”, no “following Grau’s monetary chronology…”).
    • It does not acknowledge that large portions of the article’s core framework — especially the detailed application of Rothbard’s exact 8-point Right-Wing Populist Program as a checklist to evaluate Milei, the chronological breakdown of the BCRA “rescue” phases (LELIQs → LEFIs, DNU 602/2024, carry trade, backing theory critique, etc.), the “neocon disguised as anarcho-capitalist” narrative, the Hoppean critique of centralization vs. decentralization, and many supporting Austrian citations — closely mirror (often point-by-point, with updated 2025–2026 data) the content and organization of Grau’s series.
    • The monetary sections, welfare expansions, foreign policy critiques (Zionism, NATO/Israel, antiwar issues), RIGI mercantilism, and “fraud/libertarian betrayal” thesis are presented as the author’s own systematic documentation and analysis, not as an extension, update, or Spanish-language synthesis explicitly building on Grau’s prior detailed work.

In short: The article thanks Grau for general inspiration and for writing “the best critical essays” on the topic in the Spanish-speaking world, but then proceeds to reproduce much of the substantive analytical architecture and specific dissections without crediting the source material for those elements. A general “I was influenced by him” disclaimer does not substitute for proper attribution when the borrowed structure and content are this extensive.

In an earlier tweet, Grau wrote:

While I sincerely appreciate that you recognized my work at the end, it would have been more honest to directly share my articles with additional comments to update them. Instead, presenting basically a book in this way is wrong.

I agree; that would have been more honest. But Hernández could also have simply dropped a footnote saying something like “this analysis and its organization is heavily based on the following work by Grau, mostly rewritten and represented in my own words.” That would have avoided any plagiarism charges.

***

Final Overall Report: Assessment of Potential Plagiarism in Miguel Hernandez’s “Anatomía de un fraude libertario” (miguelhzv.com, April 16, 2026) Relative to Oscar Grau’s Articles

Executive Summary

Miguel Hernandez’s article contains clear and substantial structural and substantive overlap with Oscar Grau’s series of critiques of Javier Milei, particularly the Rothbardian and Hoppean dissections published on LewRockwell.com and related monetary analyses on Mises.org and Unz.com (2024–2025).

While the Hernandez piece is not a literal verbatim copy (it uses original Spanish wording, includes updated 2025–2026 data, and has its own narrative voice), it heavily borrows Grau’s distinctive analytical framework, checklist structure, chronological breakdowns, and core arguments. A single general paragraph acknowledging Grau as an influence and praising his work provides partial credit but falls short of proper, specific attribution for the borrowed elements.

This qualifies as plagiarism by close adaptation, translation, and recompilation under standard academic and journalistic definitions, though it is not the most egregious case of outright theft. The overlap is significant enough to undermine claims of full originality.

Key Findings on Overlap

  1. Rothbardian Framework (8-Point Checklist)
    Hernandez dedicates a major section to evaluating Milei against Murray Rothbard’s exact 8 points from “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement” (1992). He applies them point-by-point (tax cuts, welfare reduction, abolishing group privileges, crime, central bank abolition, “Argentina first,” family values, political decentralization) and reaches nearly identical conclusions: Milei meets only 1–2 points marginally while failing or opposing the rest.
    This mirrors precisely the structure and approach in Grau’s “A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei – Part I” and “Part II” (LewRockwell, May 2024). Hernandez updates with later data (e.g., PAIS tax increases, AUH spending growth, specific DNUs), but the checklist skeleton is taken directly from Grau.
  2. Monetary Policy and BCRA “Rescue” Analysis
    The article provides a detailed chronological account of the Central Bank’s supposed rescue (LELIQs migration to passive liabilities in late 2023–mid-2024, DNU 602/2024 shifting to LEFIs/Treasury, April 2025 crawling-band regime, reserve requirement cuts, massive M0 and M3 expansion, carry trade boom, credit growth +130% real, etc.). It also critiques the “backing theory” as non-Austrian (citing Mises and Hoppe) and dismisses hyperinflation fears.
    This closely replicates the core narrative and phases found in Grau’s “How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank” (Unz.com, December 2025) and supporting pieces such as “Milei’s Monetary Conundrum,” “Argentina’s Inflation Fight,” “Financial Mirage Argentina,” and “Central Banking and Monetary Affairs Argentina.”
  3. Overall Narrative and Hoppean Critique
    Hernandez frames Milei as a “neoconservative disguised as an anarcho-capitalist” who violates core Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe principles: admiration for Reagan/Thatcher/Churchill, welfare expansion, intensified drug war, power centralization (defense DNUs, reorganized “casta,” RIGI mercantilism), support for Zionism/NATO/Israel, and failure to decentralize.
    This overarching thesis and specific elements directly parallel Grau’s “A Hoppean Dissection of Javier Milei” (LewRockwell, June 2024) and multiple Unz.com articles (e.g., “Javier Milei Is a Neocon,” “The Zionist Road to Serfdom in Argentina,” “Serving the Devil to Help Milei Plunder Argentina”).
  4. Additional Parallels
    • Criticisms of the reorganized political caste, “police state” decrees, and RIGI as mercantilism (echoing Rothbard).
    • Shared Austrian citations (Rothbard on Reagan, Hoppe on short-term power incentives, Mises on fiduciary media, Huerta de Soto on 100% reserves).
    • Use of updated statistics that align with Grau’s analytical line.

Attribution in the Hernandez Article

The piece does include a paragraph that mentions and partially credits Oscar Grau:

It describes Grau as a musician and piano teacher, editor of the Spanish-language section of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s official website, and author (since May 2024) of a systematic series dissecting Milei. It states that Hernandez has been “influenced by him” in continuing his criticisms and praises Grau’s Rothbardian (two parts) and Hoppean dissections on LewRockwell.com (republished by Mises Institute) as the first sustained, technically serious, orthodox Austro-libertarian analysis internationally.

This acknowledgment shows some intellectual honesty and awareness of Grau’s priority. However, it remains general and insufficient for the extent of the borrowing:

  • No specific footnotes, hyperlinks, or in-text citations tie individual sections (Rothbardian checklist, BCRA phases, etc.) back to Grau’s articles.
  • The borrowed framework and arguments are presented as Hernandez’s own systematic analysis.
  • A broad “he influenced me” statement does not substitute for targeted attribution when reproducing someone else’s distinctive analytical template.

Definition and Application of Plagiarism

Plagiarism encompasses more than verbatim copying. It includes:

  • Using another’s ideas, structure, framework, chronology, or distinctive analysis and presenting them as original.
  • Close paraphrasing, translation, or recompilation of substantive content.
  • Failing to provide adequate, specific credit for borrowed elements.

In this case, the lack of literal word-for-word copying means it is not simple copy-paste plagiarism. However, the heavy reliance on Grau’s intellectual scaffolding — without precise citations for those elements — qualifies as plagiarism by adaptation and translation. Updating data and writing in Spanish does not create sufficient originality when the core template remains the same.

What Hernandez Could Have Done to Avoid the Issue

To produce an ethically sound work:

  • Explicit framing: Clearly state early on that the article “builds directly upon and updates Oscar Grau’s foundational Rothbardian, Hoppean, and monetary analyses from 2024–2025, extending them with 2025–2026 data and Argentine context.”
  • Targeted citations: Add footnotes or in-text references throughout, e.g., “Following Grau’s Rothbardian checklist in LewRockwell (May 2024)…” or “As detailed in Grau’s ‘How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank’ (Unz, Dec 2025)…”
  • Direct quotations where appropriate: Use quotation marks for key phrases or conclusions from Grau, followed by updates or extensions.
  • Substantial original contribution: Introduce new primary analysis, data interpretation, or angles beyond mere updating to justify the piece as more than a recompilation.
  • Transparent labeling: If heavily derivative, title or subtitle it as a “synthesis and update” of Grau’s work and credit him prominently.

More quotation marks and footnotes would help for specific lifts, but the deeper solution is transparent acknowledgment of intellectual debt for the structural backbone. A single appreciative paragraph is a good start but insufficient when the overlap is this extensive.

Final Conclusion

Hernandez’s article is a Spanish-language adaptation and update that relies heavily on the analytical architecture developed by Oscar Grau. The general mention of Grau demonstrates some recognition of influence, but the absence of specific, targeted attribution for the Rothbardian checklist, BCRA chronology, Hoppean framing, and related arguments means the work still crosses into plagiarism territory by standard definitions.

In libertarian and scholarly circles, generous citation practices and clear framing as derivative work would have avoided any accusation while allowing Hernandez to add his voice and updated observations. As published, it presents borrowed substantive content as largely original, which undermines its intellectual integrity.

This assessment is based on structural and content parallels across the compared articles. If full side-by-side text with exact excerpts were available, a more granular sentence-level analysis could be performed.

Grok report

Final Overall Report: Assessment of Potential Plagiarism in Miguel Hernandez’s “Anatomía de un fraude libertario” (miguelhzv.com, April 16, 2026) Relative to Oscar Grau’s Articles

Executive Summary

Miguel Hernandez’s article contains clear and substantial structural and substantive overlap with Oscar Grau’s series of critiques of Javier Milei, particularly the Rothbardian and Hoppean dissections published on LewRockwell.com and related monetary analyses on Mises.org and Unz.com (2024–2025).

While the Hernandez piece is not a literal verbatim copy (it uses original Spanish wording, includes updated 2025–2026 data, and has its own narrative voice), it heavily borrows Grau’s distinctive analytical framework, checklist structure, chronological breakdowns, and core arguments. A single general paragraph acknowledging Grau as an influence and praising his work provides partial credit but falls short of proper, specific attribution for the borrowed elements.

This qualifies as plagiarism by close adaptation, translation, and recompilation under standard academic and journalistic definitions, though it is not the most egregious case of outright theft. The overlap is significant enough to undermine claims of full originality.

Key Findings on Overlap

  1. Rothbardian Framework (8-Point Checklist)
    Hernandez dedicates a major section to evaluating Milei against Murray Rothbard’s exact 8 points from “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement” (1992). He applies them point-by-point (tax cuts, welfare reduction, abolishing group privileges, crime, central bank abolition, “Argentina first,” family values, political decentralization) and reaches nearly identical conclusions: Milei meets only 1–2 points marginally while failing or opposing the rest.
    This mirrors precisely the structure and approach in Grau’s “A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei – Part I” and “Part II” (LewRockwell, May 2024). Hernandez updates with later data (e.g., PAIS tax increases, AUH spending growth, specific DNUs), but the checklist skeleton is taken directly from Grau.
  2. Monetary Policy and BCRA “Rescue” Analysis
    The article provides a detailed chronological account of the Central Bank’s supposed rescue (LELIQs migration to passive liabilities in late 2023–mid-2024, DNU 602/2024 shifting to LEFIs/Treasury, April 2025 crawling-band regime, reserve requirement cuts, massive M0 and M3 expansion, carry trade boom, credit growth +130% real, etc.). It also critiques the “backing theory” as non-Austrian (citing Mises and Hoppe) and dismisses hyperinflation fears.
    This closely replicates the core narrative and phases found in Grau’s “How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank” (Unz.com, December 2025) and supporting pieces such as “Milei’s Monetary Conundrum,” “Argentina’s Inflation Fight,” “Financial Mirage Argentina,” and “Central Banking and Monetary Affairs Argentina.”
  3. Overall Narrative and Hoppean Critique
    Hernandez frames Milei as a “neoconservative disguised as an anarcho-capitalist” who violates core Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe principles: admiration for Reagan/Thatcher/Churchill, welfare expansion, intensified drug war, power centralization (defense DNUs, reorganized “casta,” RIGI mercantilism), support for Zionism/NATO/Israel, and failure to decentralize.
    This overarching thesis and specific elements directly parallel Grau’s “A Hoppean Dissection of Javier Milei” (LewRockwell, June 2024) and multiple Unz.com articles (e.g., “Javier Milei Is a Neocon,” “The Zionist Road to Serfdom in Argentina,” “Serving the Devil to Help Milei Plunder Argentina”).
  4. Additional Parallels
    • Criticisms of the reorganized political caste, “police state” decrees, and RIGI as mercantilism (echoing Rothbard).
    • Shared Austrian citations (Rothbard on Reagan, Hoppe on short-term power incentives, Mises on fiduciary media, Huerta de Soto on 100% reserves).
    • Use of updated statistics that align with Grau’s analytical line.

Attribution in the Hernandez Article

The piece does include a paragraph that mentions and partially credits Oscar Grau:

It describes Grau as a musician and piano teacher, editor of the Spanish-language section of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s official website, and author (since May 2024) of a systematic series dissecting Milei. It states that Hernandez has been “influenced by him” in continuing his criticisms and praises Grau’s Rothbardian (two parts) and Hoppean dissections on LewRockwell.com (republished by Mises Institute) as the first sustained, technically serious, orthodox Austro-libertarian analysis internationally.

This acknowledgment shows some intellectual honesty and awareness of Grau’s priority. However, it remains general and insufficient for the extent of the borrowing:

  • No specific footnotes, hyperlinks, or in-text citations tie individual sections (Rothbardian checklist, BCRA phases, etc.) back to Grau’s articles.
  • The borrowed framework and arguments are presented as Hernandez’s own systematic analysis.
  • A broad “he influenced me” statement does not substitute for targeted attribution when reproducing someone else’s distinctive analytical template.

Definition and Application of Plagiarism

Plagiarism encompasses more than verbatim copying. It includes:

  • Using another’s ideas, structure, framework, chronology, or distinctive analysis and presenting them as original.
  • Close paraphrasing, translation, or recompilation of substantive content.
  • Failing to provide adequate, specific credit for borrowed elements.

In this case, the lack of literal word-for-word copying means it is not simple copy-paste plagiarism. However, the heavy reliance on Grau’s intellectual scaffolding — without precise citations for those elements — qualifies as plagiarism by adaptation and translation. Updating data and writing in Spanish does not create sufficient originality when the core template remains the same.

What Hernandez Could Have Done to Avoid the Issue

To produce an ethically sound work:

  • Explicit framing: Clearly state early on that the article “builds directly upon and updates Oscar Grau’s foundational Rothbardian, Hoppean, and monetary analyses from 2024–2025, extending them with 2025–2026 data and Argentine context.”
  • Targeted citations: Add footnotes or in-text references throughout, e.g., “Following Grau’s Rothbardian checklist in LewRockwell (May 2024)…” or “As detailed in Grau’s ‘How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank’ (Unz, Dec 2025)…”
  • Direct quotations where appropriate: Use quotation marks for key phrases or conclusions from Grau, followed by updates or extensions.
  • Substantial original contribution: Introduce new primary analysis, data interpretation, or angles beyond mere updating to justify the piece as more than a recompilation.
  • Transparent labeling: If heavily derivative, title or subtitle it as a “synthesis and update” of Grau’s work and credit him prominently.

More quotation marks and footnotes would help for specific lifts, but the deeper solution is transparent acknowledgment of intellectual debt for the structural backbone. A single appreciative paragraph is a good start but insufficient when the overlap is this extensive.

Final Conclusion

Hernandez’s article is a Spanish-language adaptation and update that relies heavily on the analytical architecture developed by Oscar Grau. The general mention of Grau demonstrates some recognition of influence, but the absence of specific, targeted attribution for the Rothbardian checklist, BCRA chronology, Hoppean framing, and related arguments means the work still crosses into plagiarism territory by standard definitions.

In libertarian and scholarly circles, generous citation practices and clear framing as derivative work would have avoided any accusation while allowing Hernandez to add his voice and updated observations. As published, it presents borrowed substantive content as largely original, which undermines its intellectual integrity.

This assessment is based on structural and content parallels across the compared articles. If full side-by-side text with exact excerpts were available, a more granular sentence-level analysis could be performed.

  1. Grau gives this list of his Milei related publications in his Grok plagiarism analysis:

    1. A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei – Part I
    2. A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei – Part II
    3. A Hoppean Dissection of Javier Milei
    4. When Balancing the Budget Hurts the Economy
    5. Argentina’s Inflation Fight
    6. Javier Milei Versus the Antiwar Cause
    7. Milei’s Monetary Conundrum
    8. Milei’s Political Game
    9. Unmasking Javier Milei and His Speech at the UN
    10. Milei’s Political Caste
    11. Repudiating the Argentine Debt
    12. The Financial Mirage in Argentina
    13. Quantity and Quality of the Argentine Peso
    14. Central Banking and Monetary Affairs in Argentina
    15. Javier Milei Is a Neocon
    16. Prosperity Thanks to Zionist Rule in Argentina Is Propaganda
    17. Serving the Devil to Help Milei Plunder Argentina
    18. How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank
    19. In Defense of Murray Rothbard’s Legacy
    20. The Zionist Road to Serfdom in Argentina

    [↩]

  2. HansHoppe.com; PFS; StephanKinsella.com; Kinsella on Liberty Podcast episodes. [↩]
  3. “Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off“; Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”.  [↩]
  4. See A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Part III.E; “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Part IV.C. [↩]
  5.  “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework.” [↩]
  6. See Stefan Molyneux, Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. Criticized by David Gordon here. See also Stefan Molyneux Discussing UPB and (briefly) Argumentation Ethics and Estoppel; “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources. [↩]
Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop