Highly recommend any law enforcement officers in Minneapolis leave as soon as possible, your superiors, the local and state government, the media and courts view you as the enemy.
*****State of MN v. Derek Chauvin Trial*****
784,720 Views |
8794 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by titan
aggiehawg said:
This is still trial related. Dr. Fowler, a defense expert is now being "investigated" (read "trashed") by the Maryland state AG. Just like Judge Sullivan did in the Flynn case the AG is asking for comers to comment and submit their opinions. Which is not the way investigations are normally done. This is a dog pile to smear the guy.Quote:
Now it's happening, the threats are coming to fruition. The Washington Post reports that the Maryland Attorney General is planning to appoint a panel to audit Fowler's cases:Quote:
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh's office plans to appoint a panel of independent experts to audit and release a public report on all cases of deaths in police custody overseen by David Fowler, the state's former chief medical examiner who testified in Derek Chauvin's defense.The Maryland A.G. Statement reads, in full:Quote:
In a statement Friday, Frosh (D) said his office would be "consulting experts, examining similar audits in other jurisdictions, and doing a preliminary review of [the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner] data and protocols."
The statement called on those who have been "affected by the focus of the audit or members of the public with interest or expertise" to submit comments or materials to the Office of the Attorney General.
Fowler could not be immediately reached on Friday but said earlier he formed his opinion in collaboration with 13 other experts. He previously defended his work in a statement to The Washington Post: "I stand behind the outstanding work that all of our dedicated staff at the Maryland State Medical Examiner's Office performed during my tenure as the Chief ME."Quote:
"My office, in consultation with Governor Hogan's Chief Legal Counsel, has begun working to develop the process and timeline for the audit of in-custody death determinations made by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) during the tenure of Dr. David Fowler. We are committed to overseeing a professional and independent audit that adheres to the highest standards of impartiality and integrity. We will be consulting experts, examining similar audits in other jurisdictions, and doing a preliminary review of OCME data and protocols.
Our intent is to appoint a panel of independent subject matter experts to perform the audit, and at the conclusion of the review, to release a public report on its findings.
"As we continue this process, we are also interested in receiving input from communities
affected by the focus of the audit or members of the public with interest or expertise in the work of the OCME. We invite anyone who would like to provide comments or materials to send them by June 7, 2021 to the Office of the Attorney General at OCMEaudit@oag.state.md.us, or to 200
St. Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 21202."LinkQuote:
It's not hard to understand what is happening. Maryland officials and the professional forensic participants in the targeting of Fowler, are seeking both retribution against Fowler, and making it difficult if not impossible for the three other officers awaiting trial to hire expert witnesses. Chauvin had two experts who testified one (Barry Brodd) had his house targeted and the other (Dr. David Fowler) his professional license attacked.
The Maryland "audit" panel will reach the conclusion the mob wants.
<sigh>
This kind of stuff has much more far-reaching consequences than just to the Floyd officers.
This is a shot across the bow for any experts who would consider offering testimony that is counter to the approved narrative.
Our society is being controlled more and more by leftist lynch mobs: politics, judicial system, mainstream media, social media, and entertainment. Scary stuff.
Those who don't find it so, largely because they see themselves aligned politically or ideologically to some extent with the mob, would do well to consider the number of examples of some on the left who unexpectedly found themselves targets of the mob and quickly realized how dangerous and insane it is.
It all started with what happened to Joe the Plumber when he asked Obama a question in 2008. He was vilified, his personal information released by state and local employees, etc..Quote:
This kind of stuff has much more far-reaching consequences than just to the Floyd officers.
This is a shot across the bow for any experts who would consider offering testimony that is counter to the approved narrative.
Our society is being controlled more and more by leftist lynch mobs: politics, judicial system, mainstream media, social media, and entertainment. Scary stuff.
From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET
— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021
Floyd was talking and even yelling for well over four minutes of that time.
aggiehawg said:From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET
— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021
Floyd was talking and even yelling for well over four minutes of that time.
They tried to let him sit in an air conditioned car. But he fought with them. And that is how he ended up on the hard pavement with a knee holding him down. It was Floyd's stupidity, not Chauvin's "cruelty" that caused that particular hardship for Floyd.
Called EMS twice. EMS didn't show up, despite the fire station being less than half a mile away.Quote:
They tried to let him sit in an air conditioned car. But he fought with them. And that is how he ended up on the hard pavement with a knee holding him down. It was Floyd's stupidity, not Chauvin's "cruelty" that caused that particular hardship for Floyd.
Had EMS arrived in a timely manner, he would have been receiving medical care before he went unconscious.
Chauvin is the sacrificial lamb at the altar of BLM. Let something sink in: Chauvin will spend the rest of his life in protective custody (5x5 cell). If the state doesn't do it, the feds will. I got news for you, Rittenhouse is likely headed toward the same fate.
I think Chauvin was responsible for Floyd's death, but no one should be imprisoned for life for a reckless or intentional crime that lacks intent.
I think Chauvin was responsible for Floyd's death, but no one should be imprisoned for life for a reckless or intentional crime that lacks intent.
HtownAg92 said:No, he should be working from a standpoint of what the evidence showed. A judge make findings and enter a judgment that is contrary to what the jury found if the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.chickencoupe16 said:HtownAg92 said:Wow. A politically-driven and consequence-aware jury may be excused somewhat for ignoring evidence. A sitting judge doing it is just incredible.aggiehawg said:
Cahill will enhance Chauvin's sentence.LinkQuote:
Judge Cahill ruled that the following four sentencing aggravating factors will apply:Judge Cahill, however, ruled that Floyd was not "particularly vulnerable." Read Judge Cahill's full ruling here.
- Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority
- Chauvin treated George Floyd with "particular cruelty"
- Children were present during the crimes
- Chauvin committed the crime "as a group with the active participation of at least three other persons"
"Particular cruelty"? When? How? He just de facto assigned intent to kill.
I hope that the appeals court guts Cahill in their opinion for the numerous baffling errors he made through this trial.
I firmly believe Chauvin should have been found not guilty. However, having been found guilty, shouldn't Cahill work from the standpoint that Chauvin actually did commit 2nd degree murder?
If so, the only possible point of contention that I see is "particular cruelty" but even that I could agree with if you're working from the standpoint that Chauvin intended to kill him, did so in a very slow manner, and kept on well after Floyd had no pulse.
For a similar example, I had a judge enter a judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict, on punitive damages because the evidence did not show malice or a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.
I'm certainly not a lawyer and I'm not trying to argue, but that said... If a judge isn't supposed to take the jury's opinion into consideration, then why have a jury at all? Is it a case of if the judge is absolutely sure of something, then he overrides and if not, he defers to the jury? I'm not saying that Cahill should or shouldn't be absolutely sure about anything, just in general, I imagine there has to be some sort of threshold that is met.
I appreciate the feedback from actual lawyers like you and Hawg.
SHAM
Such motions to the judge to ignore the jury's decision are rarely successful but if the jury has not applied the law to the facts or the judge believes insufficient facts were adduced at trial to justify their verdict under the law, he does have that power. In fact, one of Flynn's business partners was tried over the Turkish stuff, was convicted and the judge threw out the verdict. It can happen, it is just very rare.chickencoupe16 said:HtownAg92 said:No, he should be working from a standpoint of what the evidence showed. A judge make findings and enter a judgment that is contrary to what the jury found if the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.chickencoupe16 said:HtownAg92 said:Wow. A politically-driven and consequence-aware jury may be excused somewhat for ignoring evidence. A sitting judge doing it is just incredible.aggiehawg said:
Cahill will enhance Chauvin's sentence.LinkQuote:
Judge Cahill ruled that the following four sentencing aggravating factors will apply:Judge Cahill, however, ruled that Floyd was not "particularly vulnerable." Read Judge Cahill's full ruling here.
- Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority
- Chauvin treated George Floyd with "particular cruelty"
- Children were present during the crimes
- Chauvin committed the crime "as a group with the active participation of at least three other persons"
"Particular cruelty"? When? How? He just de facto assigned intent to kill.
I hope that the appeals court guts Cahill in their opinion for the numerous baffling errors he made through this trial.
I firmly believe Chauvin should have been found not guilty. However, having been found guilty, shouldn't Cahill work from the standpoint that Chauvin actually did commit 2nd degree murder?
If so, the only possible point of contention that I see is "particular cruelty" but even that I could agree with if you're working from the standpoint that Chauvin intended to kill him, did so in a very slow manner, and kept on well after Floyd had no pulse.
For a similar example, I had a judge enter a judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict, on punitive damages because the evidence did not show malice or a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.
I'm certainly not a lawyer and I'm not trying to argue, but that said... If a judge isn't supposed to take the jury's opinion into consideration, then why have a jury at all? Is it a case of if the judge is absolutely sure of something, then he overrides and if not, he defers to the jury? I'm not saying that Cahill should or shouldn't be absolutely sure about anything, just in general, I imagine there has to be some sort of threshold that is met.
I appreciate the feedback from actual lawyers like you and Hawg.
BREAKING: Minnesota officer's legal team makes new motion of prosecutorial misconduct - that the testimony of the medical examiner of George Floyd was coerced by the State and State agents pic.twitter.com/lhTypmEvZV
— Petrol Smuggler Poso (@JackPosobiec) May 12, 2021
ME Baker is very weak. Easily intimidated.Good Poster said:BREAKING: Minnesota officer's legal team makes new motion of prosecutorial misconduct - that the testimony of the medical examiner of George Floyd was coerced by the State and State agents pic.twitter.com/lhTypmEvZV
— Petrol Smuggler Poso (@JackPosobiec) May 12, 2021
Doubt he'll sack up now.
How about that event of suddenly "finding" the blood gas test results right after it came up in the trial...just at the moment the prosecution needed them to refute testimony too. That has to figure in this whole story somehow too.aggiehawg said:ME Baker is very weak. Easily intimidated.Good Poster said:BREAKING: Minnesota officer's legal team makes new motion of prosecutorial misconduct - that the testimony of the medical examiner of George Floyd was coerced by the State and State agents pic.twitter.com/lhTypmEvZV
— Petrol Smuggler Poso (@JackPosobiec) May 12, 2021
Doubt he'll sack up now.
I'll wait to see if they can prove any of this. If they can, the effect on the Chauvin case should be profound.
LGB
The problem is they took the blindfold off lady justice and the media doesn't give a *****
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
31,028
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ho-lee Shyt. Turns out the jury AND the judge were watching a different case than you Ms. Hawg.aggiehawg said:From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET
— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021
Floyd was talking and even yelling for well over four minutes of that time.
They saw the same case. They just didn't apply the law. Neither Cahill nor the jury gave two ****s about the law.Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Ho-lee Shyt. Turns out the jury AND the judge were watching a different case than you Ms. Hawg.aggiehawg said:From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET
— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021
Floyd was talking and even yelling for well over four minutes of that time.
Nor the medical evidence, apparently. The jury and the judge believed Dr. Tobin who actually said two distiinct "medial findings".
Floyd was "breathing through his fingers and knuckles." And that he was hypoxic while having a 98% O2 blood content level. Medical impossibility.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
31,028
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very scary stuff we are seeing.
Seems mob rule has the advantage at the moment. Sad days ahead for civil liberties.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Oh please.LDA9336 said:
Hawg has already admitted: " The law and the legal system that I was taught 40 years ago is not what I am seeing today."
Her opinions should he treated accordingly.
Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.
I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.
That is certainly completely missing the point of what Hawg is saying. And no, saying her insight is obsolete is more like the Progressives saying the Constitution is outdated. It is for their bad agenda, yes. Similar for our laws apparently.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Sorry.LDA9336 said:Ag with kids said:Oh please.LDA9336 said:
Hawg has already admitted: " The law and the legal system that I was taught 40 years ago is not what I am seeing today."
Her opinions should he treated accordingly.
Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.
I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.
Not sure how you missed that I was quoting Hawg. You should direct your question to her.
A few drinks last night. Misread the post.
And I'll treat her opinion much higher than yours, thanks.
40 years ago if you wanted to influence a jury decision, you would have to do so with a newspaper or the 5:00 news. Maybe, if your message got lucky, one of the new national cable news networks may pick up a soundbite and those few with premium cable may see it. But local channels still ruled, 24 hour news was a fad and Cubs games on WGN were still the programming of choice for your cable subscriber.
Of course, chance are that your case was even known outside of your local jurisdiction are slim to none.
Today, anyone can record and broadcast a crime in real time, have it go viral and taint a jury pool instantly. Then you can broadcast a slanted view up until trial, spin the evidence during trial, and then threaten blood in the streets as a sitting member of Congress if the verdict doesn't go one way.
Of course, chance are that your case was even known outside of your local jurisdiction are slim to none.
Today, anyone can record and broadcast a crime in real time, have it go viral and taint a jury pool instantly. Then you can broadcast a slanted view up until trial, spin the evidence during trial, and then threaten blood in the streets as a sitting member of Congress if the verdict doesn't go one way.
Judges ran their courtrooms and seldom tolerated any funny business by attorneys. If anything they were generally harder on the prosecution than defense attorneys because the judge's function was to ensure a defendant's Constitutional rights to due process were preserved while in their court.Ag with kids said:Sorry.LDA9336 said:Ag with kids said:Oh please.LDA9336 said:
Hawg has already admitted: " The law and the legal system that I was taught 40 years ago is not what I am seeing today."
Her opinions should he treated accordingly.
Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.
I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.
Not sure how you missed that I was quoting Hawg. You should direct your question to her.
A few drinks last night. Misread the post.
And I'll treat her opinion much higher than yours, thanks.
Gag orders on attorneys were rare, very rare. Because defense attorneys making public statements, even defendants themselves saying they are innocent to the press is part of that due process. (It may not always be in the best interest of their client to make press statements but that's a different matter.)
When a judge threatened a mistrial if X happened and then X happened, the gavel banged down swiftly and decisively.
Cahill made a hash of the Chauvin case by allowing the state to run roughshod over the rules that are (now only nominally) in place to protect a defendant's rights to due process. The initial witness list of over 400 was ridiculous for a not overly complicated case, for instance. Cahill should have taken control right then and there and tell the state to pare down their list to remove cumulative testimony and decide which ones presented their best evidence. Way too many bystanders were allowed to testify. Way too many medical experts were allowed to testify and get this point solely for the purpose of impeaching their own Medical Examiner before he even testified. Their entire testimonies were about facts not yet in evidence.
He allowed fact witnesses (and not even major fact witnesses because they were just caretakers for a crime scene of a case that had already been removed from the MPD) to opine on the results of an investigation that they did not conduct, were never authorized to conduct and of which they knew nothing. They were fact witnesses not experts and that line of questioning should have never been allowed.
By all rights, Chauvin's convictions should be reversed on appeal and a retrial ordered by the appellate court. Sadly, I don't believe even the appellate courts will put the law above politics and fear of mob rule.
Well said, clear concise and on point.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Quote:
By all rights, Chauvin's convictions should be reversed on appeal and a retrial ordered by the appellate court. Sadly, I don't believe even the appellate courts will put the law above politics and fear of mob rule.
It's the mob rule. As a judge I am thinking the media and the mob know who I am and where I live. Choose "poorly" and they will make my life a living hell. The media would spare no expense digging into your personal life until they found something...true or not.
Very scary times we find ourselves in.
Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?
How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?
Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.
But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.
How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?
Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.
But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.
Pumpkinhead said:
Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?
How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?
Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.
But generalizing this case as having any meaning in the state or future of our court systems...it is just one very rare type of case. I am leery of trying to read too much into any higher repercussions or meaning in it.
Missed the Flynn trial did you. Or the Manafort or Stone trials.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
This case was a notable example, but the narrative of racial division, tension, white supremacy, etc. that has been forced on the country since before even Trump's presidency has had an effect on the state of the court system. I practice in the civil world, and it absolutely has affected my practice. I'll be danged if I recommend fighting a race case in any city right now, or pretty much anywhere for that matter. Tooth-and-nail fighter clients are reluctant to go anywhere near a courtroom because of bad pub, cancel culture crap, and odds against getting a fair jury.Pumpkinhead said:
Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?
How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?
Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.
But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.
^richardag said:Pumpkinhead said:
Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?
How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?
Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.
But generalizing this case as having any meaning in the state or future of our court systems...it is just one very rare type of case. I am leery of trying to read too much into any higher repercussions or meaning in it.
Missed the Flynn trial did you. Or the Manafort or Stone trials.
^
This. Judge Emmet Sullivan was way out of bounds on the Flynn matter. Despite having his own set of Brady orders that provide for criminal contempt (jail time) for prosecutors failing to provide the defense with Brady and Giglio materials, he never enforced them on Van Grack, the Mueller toady. It is extremely rare for a federal judge to be so far out of bounds to warrant a writ of mandamus to even be entertained by an appellate court.
Yet it was.
🚨 EXPLOSIVE new filing from the legal counsel of former Minneapolis Police Officer Tou Thao. It is being argued that Dr. Baker (who conducted George Floyd’s autopsy) was threatened/coerced into changing his initial findings to include ‘neck compression’ & other false claims. pic.twitter.com/9eOrUY2hKL
— 𝒥𝒾𝓁𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓃 🇺🇸 (@_jmarie94) May 12, 2021
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12949-TT/NOMM05122021.pdf
Quote:
Dr. Mitchell spoke with Dr. Baker before Dr. Baker finalized his findings on June 1, 2020. Id. During the conversation between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Baker, the following transpired:
a. Dr. Mitchell "called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer". Id.
b. "Then Mitchell asked [Baker] what happened, because Mitchell didn't think it sounded like Baker's words." Id.
c. "Baker said that he didn't think the neck compression played a part" Id. 27-CR-20-12949 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/12/2021 12:30 PM 3
6. Over the weekend, Dr. Mitchell thought about Dr. Baker more. Id. After the phone conversation between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Baker, Dr. Mitchell decided he was going to release an op-ed critical of Dr. Baker's findings in the Washington Post. Id. Dr. Mitchell first called Dr. Baker to let him know. Id. The following transpired:
a. Dr. Mitchell called Dr. "Baker first to let him know that he was going to be critical of Baker's findings". Id. "In this conversation, Mitchell said, you don't want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn't see what they saw. You don't want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong. Said there was a way to articulate the cause and manner of death that ensures you are telling the truth about what you are observing and via all of the investigation. Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis." Id.
7. Following the two conversations, on Monday June 1, 2020, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner issued a Press Release Report containing the final autopsy findings. See Exhibit 2.
a. The final autopsy findings included neck compression. Id. This was contrary to Dr. Baker's conclusion before speaking with Dr. Mitchell twice.
...
Under Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(3) Dr. Mitchell's conduct meets the elements to be found guilty of committing the crime of coercion. Dr. Mitchell orally made the threat to unlawfully injure Dr. Baker's trade unless Dr. Baker changed his autopsy findings. Dr. Mitchell told Dr. Baker to include neck compression in the final findings and warned Dr. Baker he was going to publish a damaging op-ed in the Washington Post. After Dr. Baker changed his findings, Dr. Mitchell did not publish the op-ed. Moreover, Dr. Mitchell unlawfully injured Dr. Fowler's trade by penning an open letter which resulted in an investigation into every death report in Maryland during Dr. Fowler's tenure. Dr. Mitchell has set the stage that he will threaten the trade and professional reputation of any physician who suggests that Mr. Floyd's death could be labeled as "undetermined".
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
31,028
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Erosion doesn't happen overnight or over months. It is constant and relentless.Pumpkinhead said:
Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?
How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?
Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.
But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
18h ago
1.9k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.7k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
Three Things: FAQs answered, eyes on 2025 prospects & more
by Jason Howell