Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

One Final Coakley Post

January 18th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

I have received many emails from good friends telling me why they will be voting for Martha Coakley tomorrow. I respect you and I respect your reasons.

I also respect those of you who will be voting for Scott Brown, Joseph Kennedy, or a write-in candidate. And I respect those of you who have decided to just stay home.

This is a difficult election. All we can do is cast — or not cast — our ballots thoughtfully.

The following excerpt from the document Frank Kane sent me concerns Coakley’s actions as Attorney General. It demonstrates that Coakley is firmly on the side of prosecutorial power and has little concern for the rights of defendants. But our courts are not level playing fields. While prosecutors are supposed to bear the burden of proof, it has now de facto become necessary for defendants to prove themselves innocent beyond doubt. Prosecutors are paid by the government as are any expert witnesses they use. Defendants must either raise enormous amounts of money — sometimes hundreds of thousdands of dollars — or rely on underpaid and overworked public defenders. And once a conviction occurs, it is next to impossible to have it reversed.

I find most troubling Coakley’s advocacy (in the name of the people of Massachusetts) for total prosecutorial immunity, even in cases where they deliberately frame innocent people. One reason we see so much injustice in our court system is that prosecutors have carte blanche and know they will not be held accountable for their misdeeds.

I will be so happy when this election is behind us. Here is the excerpt from Frank’s report:

***

Coakley Signs On To Amicus Curiae Brief re Death Penalty and States’ Rights

On November 6, 2009, the Boston Globe published an article, titled, Death penalty foes rip Coakley for signing brief, citing facts in the case which involves an Alabama man, a convicted murderer.  The man, Holly Wood, has appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds his state-appointed lawyer failed to introduce crucial evidence that he, Mr. Wood, is mentally retarded.

Attorney General Coaikley, who says she is firmly against capital punishment, has drawn the ire of some death penalty opponents by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to limit federal review of state court decisions, which opponents say could make it harder for defendants on death row to challenge their sentences.

Coakley, along with 18 other states’ attorneys general, signed a friend-of-the court brief in September, 2009, asking that the nation’s highest court maintain restrictions on intervention by federal courts.  Death penalty opponents say if Coakley’s arguments prevail it could be more difficult for federal courts to overturn death sentences, as well as other criminal punishmnents, handed down in state courts.

“There’s no way this kid should be killed,” said Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, who also teaches at Yale and Georgetown Law schools.  “At the end of the day, if Alabama wins, this kid with an IQ in the 60s will be executed.”

Coakley and her aides argue that her signing the brief had nothing to do with the death penalty and that they were purely concerned with the legal implications of allowing federal courts more discretion in reviewing decisions that state courts have already made, which Coakley asserts would take additional time, money, and resources..

Coakley said that the brief she signed, though it is attached to a death penalty case, is limited in scope and is designed to address only the question of what role the federal courts should have in reviewing state court decisions.  She says the brief makes no mention of capital punishment.

“It’s definitely a death penalty case,” said Kerry Scanlon, Wood’s lawyer, “I was surprised to see that Massachusetts had signed onto this brief.”

At issue is the interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which in most instances bars federal reconsideration of legal and factual issues on which state courts have already ruled.  A Supreme Court ruling in Alabama’s favor could result in federal courts having to defer to state judgments in many instances.  Death penalty cases from the states are among those frequently challenged in federal court.

“If you’re concerned about the death penalty, than you have to be concerned about people being able to have their case reviewed in federal court,” said Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama.  “The error rate, in my judgment, is shockingly high, so high that you want federal courts to be able to review these cases without a lot of restrictions.”

“In this case,” Stevenson added, “Mr. Wood will be executed in a matter of weeks….It is not theoretical in Alabama.”

In their brief, Coakley and other states that signed onto it argued that the decisions already made by state courts should not be over-ridden.  The brief states, in part, “States have the obligation to protect the finality of the judgments entered by their courts—–an obligation that is even more compelling when it involves criminal judgments.  Undoing finality in habeas corpus litigation in the federal courts can undermine the states’ interests in ensuring safety, deterring crime, and rehabilitating criminal offenders.”

[Note:  There’s that word again;—Finality.  Now, if only the states were infallibly correct in their investigations and trials, their convictions and rulings, and only guilty folks were ever found guilty, we wouldn’t  need any oversight, would we?  But that doesn’t appear to be so, not by a long shot.]

***********************************************************

Amicus against Two Iowa Men

Martha Coakley also joined in an amicus brief that advocates for total immunity for prosecutors in a case of two African American men from Iowa, having spent 25 years of their lives in prison, who’d been appealing their unjust conviction on the grounds they’d been framed by prosecutors for a murder they did not commit.  In November, 2009, the case was before the U.S. Supreme Court.

**********************************************************

Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court against Accused’s Rights to Question Forensics

On November 10, 2008, Martha Coakley, as Atorney General, argued before the Court that requiring forensics scientists to testify at criminal trials where their reports are presented as evidence would place an undue burden on the state’s already-backlogged drug testing system.

The case centers on whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to confront witnesses against him applies to the admission of drug analysis certificates as evidence at criminal trials.  If it does, the analysts who prepare the reports could be required to provide live testimony in court.

The Justices pointed to California’s system, in which drug analysis certificates can be admitted as evidence only if the analyst who prepares the report testifies, or if the defense stipulates that the reports can be admitted without testimony.  When asked why Massachusetts couldn’t function under a similar system, Coakley said she was not familiar enough with the California system.

On June 6, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine forensic experts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other scientific evidence used at trial.

The Innocence Project, a national advocacy group that has used DNA evidence to exonerate 240 convicted criminals, hailed the decision, which applies to state and federal courts across the country.  The group said that faulty forensic science contributed to about half of the wrongful convictions the organization has helped to reverse.

Coakley was criticized for her poor showing before the Court, from her trouble dealing with the question regarding California’s system and two other justices’ questions over distinctions between crime lab reports and eyewitness testimony.

She asserted that her performance has no bearing on her ability to advocate for Massachusetts in the Senate.

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

Psychology Today Article About the Shanley Decision

January 17th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

You might find interesting this article by Jean Mercer on the Psychology Today website.

-Bob Chatelle

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

Another Martha Coakley Priest Case — Father Paul Manning

January 17th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

I have received quite a number of emails these past few days from readers of this blog. Many more of you almost certainly share the concerns of those who have contacted me. So I will try to clarify a few points.

First of all, I will not be posting a 15.500 word document. What I will do, when it is ready, is upload it as a file. When I do so I will post a short summary. Those who wish can read all or part of the complete document. In any case, it will be available in the future as a reference document. Remember, if  Coakley wins on Tuesday she isn’t going to settle for just being a Senator.

I will post two or three more excerpts from Frank’s draft, all shorter than the Souza segment.

The other main question I find much harder to answer: What impact do I want to have on the election?

(Of course I realize that I am powerless to have much of an impact, one way or another.)

It’s hard to answer beause I don’t know what I’m going to do on Tuesday. I may not know until I get into the voting booth. (In any case, I won’t vote for Coakley.)

After she won the primary, I decided to post no more about Coakley until after the election. I considered her a shoo-in and had more important things to do than waste ammunition on her. But the saturation coverage of the race caused me to break that vow. And then the Shanley decision made me really, really angry. My anger is not just at Coakley. I am angry at  that whole gang of witch hunters who have done so much damage to justice — and to people I care deeply about.  I am angry at the Boston Globe (and to a lesser degree, the Boston Phoenix) for spreading so much harmful misinformation. And I am angry at the Massachusetts Democratic party for capitalizing on the nonsense. True, some (like former Attorney General James Shannon) have had the courage to speak out. But far too few.

Many have emailed me asking me to vote for Coakley to “save health care.” I care deeply about health care. For most of the many years my partner Jim and I were battling to free Bernard Baran (and others) we went without health insurance because we just couldn’t afford it. There were several times when we needed medical care and didn’t get it because we had no insurance. (Thankfully, most things get better on their own.) Now we are on Medicare.

I am not a tea-bagger. But I have serious reservations about the health-care bill now before Congress. This blog is not the appropriate forum to discuss them. But anyone is free to email me.

I went on much longer than I had planned. Here’s Frank Kane on the Manning case:

Rev. Paul Manning Case:

In 1994, Martha Coakley prosecuted the case of Rev. Paul Manning for allegedly molesting an 11 year-old altar boy, who, after leaving a police interrogation, in which he supposedly disclosed “something,” immediately retracted what he said he’d been coerced to say. Nonetheless, Coakley went forward with the trial, relying on the testimony of Fr. Manning’s pastor and, what, circumstantial evidence? Unlike other cases against Catholic priests, not one other person, adult or child, came forward to join in the prosecution. The trial ended in an acquittal, which Coakley decried, loudly and often, even on Dateline,a national television program, had been a disgrace.

In a March 12,1998 op-ed piece, titled, Would-be District Attorney finding bad case comes home to roost, regarding Coakley’s upcoming D.A. election bid, here’s what a well-respected journalist, Paul Sullivan, said in the Lowell Sun:

It’s always heart-warming to see someone who has achieved something giving credit to that special person who influenced him or her. Often, that special person is a man of God–a priest, a rabbi, or minister, who might bring a kid to the beach, offer financial asistance to a fatherless family in need of rent money, or simply take a kid to the movies. By the standards of most of us, these would be acts of charity. Martha Coakley, a candidate for Middlesex district attorney, sees it as “unusual” behavior, possible evidence that a person is a child molester. She is the assistant D.A.who prosecuted the Rev. Paul Manning in 1994 on a child molestation charge.

Manning, who formerly served in Lowell, is a popular fellow, said to have never refused a    kid in need. By some lights, he’s a real Father Flanagan. By Coakley’s standards, he’s a suspect. In fairness to Coakley, bringing people to justice is not a job for people looking to win a popularity contest. Sometimes, justice is not easy. But Coakley, who is well known for her role in trying to put Louise Woodward in jail for life, seems to have her work cut out for her–at leaast in Lowell–when it comes to explaining the Manning case. Even if she can convince someone that charging Manning with molestation was a good idea–though the supposed victim said it never happened–the general rule is that when someone is accused of this stuff, other victims come forward in droves. In Manning’s case, just the opposite happened. In Manning’s case, hundreds of young people he helped over the years came forward to say he was not capable of such behavior.

Coakley must explain why, after the jury found Manning innocent, she went on national television to again try to convince the public that Manning was guilty. It’s peculiar behavior from Coakley, who in the Woodward case says that Judge Hiller Zobel should not have second-guessed the jury. Coakley’s behavior might have some political ramifications. When she travels around Lowell in her quest for political support, as she did yesterday, she will run into people who were quite interested in the Manning case.

Like Lowell Mayor Eileen Donoghue, who was Manning’s lawyer and zealous defender. For her, it was more than just a client she was defending; it was a mission of justice. She was outraged that Manning had to defend himself not just in the court, but on TV, from Coakley’s broadsides. Or City Councilor Grady Mulligan, or City Manager Brian Martin–two city officials who were willing to put their reputations on the line and testify for Manning. That’s not something people are generally willing to do in child molestation   cases.

To put this issue in context, in the introduction of the post-trial TV piece The Sin of the Father, by NBC’s Stone Phillips and Jane Pauley, there were references to the anti-Catholic priest hysteria evident at the time. That was when the molestation trial of the Rev. James Porter of the Fall River area was still vey much in the public memory, along with many other high-profile cases. The public will have a chance to determine whether Coakley fed the hysteria and attempted to add a priest’s pelt to her prosecutorial belt.

In this rare case, the public will, like a jury, have a chance to weigh in on Coakley’s actions. At the voting booth.

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

Another Coakley Article

January 16th, 2010

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31413.html

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

More About Martha Coakley and the Souza Case

January 16th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

A while back, I asked if a reader of this blog might be interested in pulling together a brief summary of Martha Coakley’s career. My friend Frank Kane volunteered. His short summary, however, eventually grew to 15,500 words.

Eventually I want to post the entire document, which Frank is still working on. Meanwhile, I would like to post a few excerpts.

First, I would like to post his summary of the Ray and Shirley Souza case. Frank was a frequent visitor to the Souzas during their many years spent under house arrest. Much of what follows is based not only on news reports but on conversations he had with Ray and Shirley.

***

Case of Raymond and Shirley Souza, Lowell, Mass. Grandparents [1991 to 1993]:

Coakley was assigned to the case of Raymond and Shirley Souza, grandparents who had lived all their lives in Lowell, Massachusetts. Their story began when a college-age single daughter, Shirley Ann, went to a therapist for issues with a near-date rape.  The therapist ranged beyond that incident to suggest that Shirley Ann had been sexually abused by her father, Raymond Souza, and her mother, Shirley Souza. In a nightmare subsequent to the initial sessions in which she was convinced she’d been repressing her memories, Shirley Ann dreamed that she’d been raped by her father with a crucifix, and that her mother had participated. [Note: the satanic ritual aspect of this “dream,” as well as the repressed memory facts, never made it to trial.]

In a panic, Shirley Ann immediately told her sister-in-law, Heather, and her married sister, Sharon, that she had been sexually abused by Mom and Dad, and that their children were also probably being sexually abused. Heather brought her kids to a therapist, who basically told Heather to ease up, that she was overly pressuring the kids. Heather then took the kids to another therapist, who confirmed that the children were suffering from sex abuse trauma. And so it went with the other Souza adult children
.
The Department of Social Services (DSS) was called in and had the children checked out by doctors and therapists. The initial outcome was that DSS saw no need to pursue the case, and so ruled, perhaps because Sharon, the oldest daughter, had not joined the push for indictment, as well as awareness that Heather had been pressuring her kids to disclose.

And so the DA took no further action until the daughter-in-law, Heather, protested vehemently at the Office of the DA, and somebody told Sharon she’d lose her kids if she didn’t cooperate. The DSS reversed itself and decided to go forward, when Sharon, panicked, also went to the therapist, and joined the indictment. By this time, six months had passed and Sharon was ensnared in the repressed memory trap.

The Souzas were told a child sexual abuse expert would interview the children. They later learned it was Jeanine Hemstead, a then-unlicensed social worker.

The Souzas hired a lawyer, Robert George, who counseled them to go with a bench trial — a judge, but no jury. The first judge available demurred on the bench trial; the next available judge was Elizabeth Dolan. George told the Souzas she was a good judge, knew child sex abuse matters very extensively, but failed to inform them she had been Gerald Amirault’s judge. The Souzas did not fully understand the significance of a bench trial, which, in effect, was like a grand jury hearing, in which the judge could allow or disallow most anything.

Judge Dolan informed George that she would not allow any of that recovered memory garbage in her court room, and threatened to throw him out if he tried to bring it in. Therefore, the true start of the Souza fiasco, the recovery of repressed memories of Shirley Ann, never saw the light of day in the Souza trial. All would hinge on the testimony of little children, just as in the Fells Acres Case. I’m sure Coakley and the D.A. were not displeased with that decision. And, the children came up with similar bizarre accusations as in the Fells Acres trial. They said Granma and Grampa had locked them up in a cage in the basement (there was no cage), that they’d been molested by a machine as big as a room, and that they’d been forced to drink a green potion. When one of the kids, as she was being questioned by the social worker, pushed around one of those sexually-explicit dolls lying on the floor, with the toe of her shoe, it was entered in evidence that the girl had been sexually molested by her grandfather, using his toe.

Judge Dolan gave short shrift to the one Souza expert, Dr. Richard Gardner, a well-known psychologist who had written books on child sex abuse cases, especially the Salem Witch Trials. She barely acknowledged his contribution of his extensive experience in the field, whereas she listened intently to what Dr.Andrea Vandeven from Children’s Hospital had to say, in regard to an anal “wink” and to a hymenal anomaly, later called a “tear” in the media after the trial session (Lowell Sun), as “not indicating sexual abuse but not inconsistent with the existence of possible sexual abuse.” Later, when the Souzas appealed that the doctor had contradicted her own reporting of physical symptomology, Judge Dolan said that she had made her decision on their guilt, with little to no regard to the testimony of the experts in the case, so the matter they were appealing was irrelevant.

George did not try to call the therapist who had told Heather she was overly pressuring her kids. He also failed to call a medical expert to counter Vandeven’s claims. He never tried to challenge Jeanine Hemstead’s credentials by calling her out. In short, George didn’t object to much of anything of substance, which could have helped the Souzas on appeal.

Ray Souza had a hearing problem, following a near-electrocution on his job, but nothing was done by the court to assist him. There is no record of George trying to file an objection to it. Ray and Shirley were badly prepared to go on the stand in their own defense and came across as angry and defensive, as any innocent set of grandparents might under those conditions.

Despite the fact the Souzas’ story was featured in a lead article about repressed-memory cases in Newsweek, with the Souzas appearing on the cover, Martha Coakley responded to all queries about her case against the Souzas — on the TV program Greater Boston and elsewhere — that the trial was not about repressed memories. It was about the sexual abuse of the children.

The case, begun in 1991, finally ended in a courtroom in 1993 with Dolan convicting the Souzas. If the scenes from news stories in the media of the unfettered jubilation among the Souza adult children can be judged accurate, in the court room after Judge Dolan decreed the guilt of their mother and father, then, it seemed that the female members of the family had totally fallen under the Repressed Memories spell. There was unbridled glee, shared with the prosecution sex abuse team’s gloating over their “victory.”

When Judge Dolan, at the sentencing hearing, allowed the Souza adult children to read from letters purportedly written by the children, something happened to Dolan’s stern resolve, which had taken on an almost impassive and implacable aspect when it came to matter before her — the alleged horrendous molestation of the Souzas’ grandchildren, accompanied by unbelievable, unproven, and unsubstantiated claims by the prosecution team, led by Martha Coakley and including the experts from the Children’s Hospital’s Abuse Prevention Group, headed up by Dr. Eli Newberger.

What affected Dolan no one will ever know, whether it was the stand taken by experts, not in the trial, but in the media, that the Middlesex D.A.’s Office had over-reached and over-charged, or perhaps the reading of those letters from the children, filled with hateful and barbed animosity, not sounding like words any child would say, let alone know.  Dolan seemed to react with a measure of mercy by allowing the Souzas to remain under house arrest pending appeal. She still found them guilty, however, while never addressing the true source of their prosecution, the repressed memories of the youngest Souza daughter — an element  she had barred from testimony, without objection by the Souzas’ lawyer, Robert George.  She sentenced the Souzas to 9 to 15 years.

Later, in 1995 and in 1998, Dolan turned down all points in their appeal, but then revised their sentence to nine years.  She did not remand them to prison, over the objections of the adult Souza children and the Middlesex County DA’s Office, voiced by Martha Coakley. So Ray and Shirley Souza spent the time until 2002 at home, but with ankle bracelets and a constantly-monitoring phone system, all of which they had to pay for.  At least they were together, and he not in Bridgewater and she not in Framingham. Ironically, Dolan did not set any home visitation restrictions on the Souzas, despite the conviction for child abuse. Friends of their adult children often brought their own little kids on visits to the Souzas’ home. Dolan refused to amend her guidelines for children visiting, despite the complaints from the D.A..

Lest one might think Coakley later changed her mind about her much-maligned and oft-criticized prosecution of the Souzas, she continued to argue that the couple should be behind bars.  In a Boston Globe article dated November 28, 1999, following her election as Middlesex D.A., Coakley reaffirmed that position.  “I didn’t feel at all there was pressure for us to go on some witch hunt to clean up child abuse,” Caokley said.  “If you look across the board at the abuse cases we did, there are a lot we didn’t go after. I’m pretty proud of my record on that.”

In the same article, in assessing Coakley’s future role as the new Middlesex County D.A., the writer speculates, as follows:

“Just what she will do in the office remains unclear. Even though crime is down statewide, those who take her measure from her years in the child abuse unit are watchful for signs of an aggressive attack on crime. Defense attorneys are generally unwilling to talk publicly about Coakley, in whose hands their clients’ fates may lie, but some regard her as having been unrelentingly zealous. Charges of over-reaching echo particularly in the Souza Case, which Coakley helped prosecute.

“Last year, a judge [Elizabeth Dolan] ruled that the elderly couple did not have to go to prison, as prosecutors had wanted, but could remain under house arrest. In doing so, the judge revoked their original prison sentence of 9 to 15 years and placed them on probation until 2002, causing some to criticize Coakley for slamming the couple too hard in the first place.”  (Actually, they remained under house arrest until April, 2002.)

“Martha Coakley was one of the people who believed that all victims and children were telling the truth when they said they were abused,” declared lawyer Robert George , who defended the Souzas. “Did she go too far in prosecuting the Souzas? Absolutely. I don’t think Martha Coakley ever stopped going 100 miles an hour in her efforts to convict them.”

Raymond Souza died in 2007, of complications of Alzheimer’s. His wake and funeral, although not announced by Shirley Souza in the media, for fear of continuing media persecution, drew an amazing crowd of hundreds of his family, friends, neighbors, work associates, and Lowell-area luminaries, worthy of any well-loved and respected personage.  A  cortege consisting of scores of automobiles wound through the streets of Lowell. At the cemetery, Ray was accorded honors as a World War II veteran of the U.S. Navy, and Shirley was given the ceremonially-folded U.S. flag.

Shirley Souza, in 2009, remains categorized as a registered sex offender according to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). While Martha Coakley runs for Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Washington, D.C..

**************************************************************

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

Shanley Decision Even Worse Than I Thought

January 15th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

I am sorry to say that there was not a single dissent. I had my hopes up about Ralph Gants. But he bitterly disappointed.

This is what they had to say about repressed memory:

“In sum, the judge’s finding that the lack of scientific testing did not make unreliable the theory that an individual may experience disassociative amnesia [massive repression] was supported in the record, not only by expert testimony but by a wide collection of clinical observations and a survey of academic literature,” Cordy wrote.

In other words, although there is no evidence to back the theory, we have to accept it because some clinicians and academics happen to believe in it.

By this reasoning, the “expert” testimony of astrologers should also be admissible in Massachusetts courtrooms.

-Bob Chatelle

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

More Massachusetts Injustice – SJC Upholds Bogus Shanley Conviction

January 15th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

I was not surprised — but still sickened — by this story that just appeared on the Boston Globe web site.

I attended the Shanley trial. No reliable evidence was presented. The only evidence, in fact, was the uncorroborated testimony of a steroid-addicted sociopath who claimed that Shanley had abused him on a weekly basis for years and that he then immediately repressed all memories of the abuse only to recover them decades later.

There is no evidence to support the possibility of this kind of massive repression.

But thanks to the SJC, this whacko theory is now considered “science” in Massachusetts courtrooms. I live in a state where the SJC cares aught for science and justice but everything about politics. Perhaps they just wanted to give their pal Martha Coakley, who relentlessly pursued this conviction, a little boost.

I haven’t yet seen the decision. I wonder if at least one Justice had the guts to dissent.

Judges in more enlightened states have tossed the theory of massive repression into the trash where it belongs. Sooner or later, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to tackle the issue. Perhaps the Shanley case is the one they need to hear.

For more about Shanley, see http://ncrj.org/Shanley/.

-Bob Chatelle

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

Dorothy Rabinowitz Weighs in on Martha Coakley

January 15th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

From today’s Wall Street Journal.

-Bob Chatelle

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

A Radio Interview With Gerald Amirault

January 14th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

Put a little time aside to listen to  this. I think Gerald did a great job.

-Bob

Friends of Justice is a personal blog. Here I speak only for myself.

An Article About Coakley from The American Thinker

January 14th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

This article from a conservative is far better than the stuff that Ann coulter has been putting out.

-Bob Chatelle