Granger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog, H back on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Granger for quality products, easy reordering, and 24-7 support.
Call 1-800GRANGER, clickgranger.com, or just stop by. Granger for the ones who get it done. It's 505 and welcome in to a Wednesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you.
We start off with some pretty big news out of the Charlotte Metro this morning. Mecklenburg County prosecutors are set to seek the death penalty against Tanya McKnight. That individual, the legal guardian accused of subjecting six-year-old Dominique Moody to prolonged abuse before the child's death last year that has gotten a lot of play in North Carolina over the last nine or ten months. The Mecklenburg County District Attorney's Office announced Tuesday that it intends to prosecute McKnight's first-degree murder charge as what is being called a capital case. With that, it means that a death sentence is possible if she is in fact convicted.
McKnight is accused of directing abuse against Moody, the six-year-old, that investigators say included starvation, beatings, restraints with duct tape, and confinement in a dog crate. Moody weighed just 27 pounds when she was found unresponsive at an East Charlotte home on December the 16th of 2025, according to court records and public information. Unfortunately, as law enforcement assessed the scene and did everything in their power to try and rectify the situation, she would have gone to unfortunately die and pass away later. Police affidavits describe Moody as having broken bones, burns, healed scars, and open wounds in various stages of healing. Other children living in the home told investigators that McKnight forced the six-year-old and Dominique Moody to live in a dog crate.
Crate while investigators alleged that she was deprived of food and left for extended periods of time in urine and feces-spoiled diapers. A truly horrific situation. McKnight was initially charged with child abuse in December. That was just a day after the passing of Moody, before prosecutors added a first-degree murder charge a few months later in February of this year. Two other women, Taryn McKnight and Susan Robinson, are also charged with first-degree murder and child abuse in connection with Moody's death, but prosecutors announced this week that they will not seek the death penalty against either of the other two women.
The decision makes McKnight's prosecution the first case in which Mecklenburg County prosecutors have sought the death penalty under district attorney Spencer Merriweather. The office last pursued capital punishment in 2017.
However, that was under the former district attorney in Andrew Murray in a case against Curtis Atkinson Jr. Prosecutors later dropped their pursuit of the death penalty in the case, and Atkinson was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted just a couple of years ago in 2023. Under North Carolina law, district attorneys have the discretion and they have the ability about whether to prosecute a first degree murder charge as a capital case. Prosecutors seeking a possible death sentence must notify the defendant themselves. And file that intent with the court by a pretrial conference or an arrangement, whichever occurs later.
If convicted in a capital case, a separate sentencing proceeding would then take place later on to determine whether she receives the death penalty or life imprisonment. State law also allows prosecutors to accept a life sentence later in the prosecution, even after initially declaring a capital case, with noting that North Carolina has not carried out an execution in 20 years, going all the way back to 2006. As of this morning, there is no trial date that has been announced for this case as of this point. But as you are well aware, Moody's death has also prompted some pretty significant scrutiny of child welfare agencies that had contact with her household numerous times before she died and legislative action took place. which we followed over the last couple of months as well.
A North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services review found that Mecklenburg County child welfare officials missed repeated opportunities to intervene in this horrific situation. Four of five reports involving Moody's household that county workers screened out should have been accepted for further assessment because the allegations met the legal definition of abuse or neglect, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Those state reviewers also found that workers failed to adequately examine the household, the household's child protective service history, making sufficient collateral contacts or maintaining a level of contact needed to assess Moody's and the other children in the home and their safety. According to lawmakers who spoke, or excuse me, according to the Division Director of Health and Human Services at DHHS, Lisa Tucker Colley, she told House lawmakers back on June the 4th of this year: our review of this facility revealed serious concerns with Mecklenburg County's child welfare practices, including numerous violations of state law, rule, and policy. That roughly eight-hour oversight hearing broadened the scrutiny beyond Moody's case.
In a review of 122 unrelated Mecklenburg County child welfare records, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services found that intake workers failed to ask sufficient questions in 52% of the cases. Adequate safety plans were present in just 43% of the cases. And 58% lacked all the required components of quality supervisory oversight. You'll remember some details from that House hearing. Here was the opening from Representative Alan Chesser, who led that hearing back in June.
There's a pattern here. A child dies, and the Department of Health and Human Services investigates, finds a lack of oversight, poor decision making, and poor management. And the local Child Protective Services Office is putting on a corrective action plan. and the state takes over for a little while. but fundamentally nothing changes.
Dominique Moody's death could have been prevented. Let me say that again. This was a preventable death that occurred because of inaction. That was the kickoff of that eight-hour meeting that took place in Raleigh back just a couple of months ago. The findings from NCDHHS and details coming out of that hearing helped drive legislation aimed at creating a state backstop for high-risk cases in North Carolina's county-administered child welfare system.
It was the North Carolina House that voted 113 to 0 in June for Senate Bill 280, aptly named the Dominique Moody Safety Act, which included a child welfare case escalation team that operates at the state level within NCDHHS. That group is set to review cases involving repeated reports or significant child welfare histories. During the House debate, Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican from Columbus County, pointed to the abuse documented in the Moody case, saying, I read the report on Dominique, and it's enough to make the biggest, strongest man cry to know what this child endured. We have no greater responsibility than to take care of children in our state. Representative Carla Cunningham, the now independent member of the North Carolina General Assembly from Mecklenburg County and one of the bill's primary sponsors, said that the legislation was intended in part to ensure repeated reports involving the same child are considered together rather than in isolation.
With Cunningham saying, patterns matter, history matters, repeated concerns matter. Lawmakers ultimately included some $650,000 for Moody-related reforms in the 26-27 state budget, including $550,000 in the state. In recurring funding for six employees on the escalation team and $100,000 in one-time funding for child abuse and neglect training. Representative Alan Chesser told the Carolina Journal after the budget was approved that Moody's case would have triggered review by this team because of a number of earlier reports that had been screened out by local officials in Mecklenburg County. Telling Carolina Journal, this would have provided a much needed review, a second set of eyes, if you will, that could have reviewed the decision-making and ultimately, I believe, saved this life.
The final budget did not include several other provisions from the House passed legislation, including a predictive risk modeling, a public dashboard comparing a county child welfare performance, and additional documentation requirements for certain home assessments. Nevertheless, the key portion of that, this escalation team that will operate at the state level, was included. And so, as many lawmakers made it abundantly clear back in the month of June when this hearing took place, the hope and the goal here is to make sure that a situation like this can never unfold in the state of North Carolina. And the top, recapping that top story, Mecklenburg County prosecutors there will be seeking the death penalty against Tanya McKnight, who was the legal Guardian and is accused of subjecting a six-year-old Dominique Moody to that prolonged abuse before her death in late 2025. We have more details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com.
Look for the headline: death penalty sought in Dominique Moody case. What if one bottle could replace the benefits of eight steps in your skincare routine? Get Glass-like skin, and your time back with the Resurfacing Compound by UBeauty. This transformative serum works to visibly brighten, smooth, and even your skin. While helping minimize the look of pores, dark spots, and fine lines.
all in one multitasking formula. It's breakthrough science and streamlined simplicity in a single step. For science-proven results without the clutter or confusion, shop the resurfacing compound by UBeauty now at ubeauty.com. That's the letter U, B E A U T Y.com. Try UBeauty today.
It's 22 minutes past the hour. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. Earlier this week, Democrat Governor Josh Stein withdrew his nomination for Jeff Smythe as North Carolina's head of Department of Public Safety and instead has appointed him to a senior advisor for Homeland Security within the governor's office. We've talked about this on and off over the last couple of months. Smythe has been serving as an interim secretary since January after the retirement of former NCDPS Secretary Eddie Buffalo.
The governor had appointed NCDPS Chief Staff Cassandra. Sandra Hoekstra to serve as an interim secretary while a search is currently being conducted to find the next permanent secretary. The governor laid the blame for the change of plans at the feet of North Carolina's state senate, saying in a press release earlier this week, Jeff Smythe is a dedicated public servant and decorated law enforcement leader who has spent his 40-year career focused on keeping people safe. That's why I nominated him to serve as the secretary of the Department of Public Safety more than seven months ago. Yet by failing to consider his nomination or even hold a single public hearing, the Senate regarded its responsibility, disrespected Jeff and law enforcement, and undermined the safety of the people of North Carolina.
Their failure to do their job is unacceptable. Pretty strong commentary there from the governor, as the Senate Judiciary Committee and its leaders have been reviewing ethics complaints. Potential conflicts of interest and a history of radically progressive policing policies ahead of the confirming of Smythe to lead the Department of Public Safety. A spokeswoman for Senate Republicans told the Carolina Journal this week that Smythe's record raises broader questions about the department's direction. That spokeswoman said in part: Safety and security are top of mind for most North Carolinians.
They want to feel safe whether they're at home or out and about living their daily lives. They deserve a Department of Public Safety secretary who is laser-focused on protecting them and locking up violent criminals, not generating feel-good headlines or cowtailing to far-left activists. Politics should never get in the way of our work to create a safer, stronger North Carolina. Stein concluded in his press release. I certainly won't let it.
So, two very different sides of the coin there between us Senate Republicans and the Democrat governor. No big surprise. The North Carolina Department of Public Safety oversees major state public safety functions, including prisons, emergency management, highway patrol, and local agency coordination. Jeff Smyth is a former Burlington police chief and current city council member. Before joining the state government, he led the Burlington Police Department for eight years.
His previous official DPS biography said his tenure in Burlington included initiatives focused on officer wellness, preparedness, de-escalation, implicit bias, and behavioral health resources. Smythe's career also includes leadership roles in national and state law enforcement organizations. Which includes, for example, the former vice president of the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police, former president of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, and many other positions that he has held over his 40-year law enforcement career. Senators sent a letter to him back on May the 15th citing Smythe serving as acting DPS secretary and as a member of the Burlington City Council as a potential conflict. Smythe pushed back about a week later on May the 22nd in a response telling senators that the state's ethics commission had been made aware of his Burlington City Council role and quote, determined that my service on the council does not create a conflict of interest, end quote.
Smythe also said that he had discussed potential conflicts with his general counsel and that no conflict had arisen to date. Lawmakers had received letters of support from police leaders across the state, according to materials recently reviewed by Carolina Journal. The letters point to Smythe's decades in law enforcement, his tenure as a Burlington police chief, and his work overseeing law enforcement standards at the Department of Justice. Taken together, critics believe that the ethics letter, Smythe's response, and the need for express support had highlighted two core conflicts at the center of his confirmation. Whether Smythe could serve effectively as both a local elected official and a state public safety chief, and whether his record aligns more with mainstream law enforcement or activism-driven policing agendas post-2020.
To go through some of those details, back in June of 2020, Smith attended a George Floyd protest at North Park in Burlington and accepted a sign reading End Police Brutality. Smythe brought the sign back to the department so that officers on duty could pose with that sign and take pictures of it in a show of solidarity with protesters. There were also many other progressive policing policies that are now coming out based on Smythe's tenure. In a letter to the group 8 Can't Wait, Burlington police said that the department met or exceeded the national campaign's recommendations in several areas. The campaign, which launched during the George Floyd protest, which turned violent in many places, pushed police agencies to adopt policies such as banning chokeholds, requiring de-escalation, requiring warnings before shootings, and requiring officers to intervene when it was.
Witnessing excessive force. In a separate response to a group called Alamance Agents for Change, a local activist group pressing law enforcement agencies to change policies and practices, Burlington officials addressed issues including use of force policy, transparency, officer discipline, and the handling of officers accused of misconduct or association with alleged hate groups. In that response, Smythe described several reform-oriented actions already underway at the department. He wrote that the Burlington police had continued sending personnel to racial equity institute training and said a grant would allow additional staff to attend. The same material says that Smythe also pointed to a Burlington policy governing police contacts and searches involving transgender individuals, describing it as the first known policy of its kind in North Carolina and noting that that policy Policy had been designed and vetted by the very left of center ACLU group.
Smyth later became involved with a state-level task force for racial equity and criminal justice known as TREC as the director of a criminal justice standards division and a member of the local policy committee. This group was created by Democrat Governor Roy Cooper in June of 2022 after George Floyd's death with Stein and then North Carolina Supreme Court Associate Justice Anita Earls as co-chairs. The task force was charged with examining racial disparities in the criminal justice system and recommending policy changes. Critics believe that that entity's work went far beyond general calls for training or transparency. The task force would eventually go on to issue some 125 recommendations touching nearly every stage of the criminal justice system, including policing, officer discipline, school resource officers, juvenile justice.
Justice, sentencing, incarceration, reentry, and victim services.
So, for some of the concerns with Jeff Smythe, his nomination has now been withdrawn by current Governor Josh Stein. You can read some more details on that story over on our website this morning. CarolinaJournal.com, we've got the headline there: Stein Pol Smythe's DPS nomination blames North Carolina Senate for inaction. Granger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners.
Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog, H back on its last leg? If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Granger for quality products, easy reordering, and 24-7 support. Call 1-800GRA, clickgranger.com, or just stop by. Granger for the ones who get it done.
It's 5:38. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM. WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good Wednesday morning to you. We have got updates this morning on two different legal stories that we've been tracking for a pretty significant amount of time here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
The first deals with some bar owners that have been in litigation against former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper and the state of North Carolina as it related to their bars being closed down during the COVID-19 pandemic. The other one, more recently, pits the governor against the Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly. We'll summarize that by saying over a variety of different appointments across the state of North Carolina. To give us the latest on both of those this morning, Mitch Coke from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, let's tackle this COVID-era lawsuit first.
We've been tracking this now for quite some time. One of the consistent things that we've seen is that more and more of these bars and taverns across the state of North Carolina have been dropping out of this lawsuit. What's the latest that you're following there?
Well, this case started back during the COVID pandemic, and it was launched by the North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association. And when it started, there were about 200 plaintiffs.
Now, sometimes it was the name of a bar, sometimes it was the name of a bar owner, sometimes there was a combination, but basically about 200 plaintiffs who were involved. As the case got closer to the present day, that number had dropped to about 52.
Now, sometimes it was because the lawyers working on this case weren't able to contact anyone with the bar. Apparently, it must have shut down or somebody they changed their number and it was not easy to find. But anyway, the number had dwindled from about 200 to 52. And the most recent development is that there has been a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit by about 15 of the plaintiffs.
Now, sometimes it's the name of a bar.
Sometimes it's a bar owner.
Sometimes it's a person's name and the bar.
So basically, 15 plaintiffs. Yeah. Combinations of bar and bar owners voluntarily dismiss the case. And then there's also going to be a court hearing coming up, potentially as early as next week, that will allow the lawyers working on this case to drop another 10 plaintiffs because they haven't been able to contact them in recent months. One of the reasons this is happening is because this case has now reached the stage where there are a couple of different main things going on.
One is the plaintiff's attempt to get depositions. testimony under oath from former governor roy cooper and also his former top health official mandy cohen talking about why they decided what they did when they shut down bars in 2020 and then didn't allow the bars to reopen as other businesses were allowed to reopen including restaurants and breweries and wineries that served alcohol. All of them were allowed to reopen while private bars had to remain closed. That's one piece of the case that is moving forward. But another piece of the case that's moving forward is this discovery process where the lawyers working for now Governor Josh Stein, who's the official defendant, and also to some extent for Cooper and Cohen, they are trying to get information from the bars about, you know, just how long were you shut down?
How much business do you think you lost? How much did you make before you shut down?
So there's a lot involved for the bars that are still in this case in terms of... Of turning over information, working with the lawyers. And one thing that was said during a recent court hearing from one of the lawyers involved, Bob Orr, former state Supreme Court justice, said that after six years, some of these bar owners are just giving up. They're fed up. They don't think they're going to get anything out of this case, so they're dropping out.
And that's why we are seeing. A number of the plaintiffs who are still involved in this case dropping out is they just don't want to go through the hassle. When they initially filed suit, they just wanted to reopen. They stuck with the suit because they thought maybe they could get some money for the time that they were forced to close down. But now, after six years, for some, it's just too much of a hassle.
And so they're dropping out of the case. Yeah, and we've talked about that in great detail as we've watched this case over the last couple of years here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. We'll await some details on a potential court hearing to dismiss some more of those plaintiffs, but I guess would leave us somewhere in the ballpark of 25 to 35 potentially as we continue to watch this move forward in the weeks and months to come. We'll keep a close eye on that. Let's transition over to another legal matter that we've been keeping a close eye on, Mitch, that could have some pretty big implications here across the state of North Carolina.
As we've seen over the last decade or so, Republican lawmakers continually, as they are holding their majorities in the North Carolina General Assembly, have continued this process of slowly picking appointment of powers away from the governor.
Sometimes they are giving those to a council of state members, a variety of different things there. Two different legal challenges. The last time that we spoke, there was some question as to whether how these two different cases were going to be argued. Would they be handled separately, each having a one-hour time period? Would they?
To be combined together. Both cases would be argued over a two-hour period of time. I think you've got an update on what the Supreme Court has prescribed and laid out, how this process is going to play out as well. Yes, the state Supreme Court has issued a pair of orders, one order for each case, and basically they've agreed to an arrangement that Governor Josh Stein and Republican legislative leaders came up with to address this.
So there were a couple of different things in the agreement. One was spelling out the briefing schedule.
So the first round of briefs will be coming up in the not too distant future, and the briefing will end in late October. I think the first brief is due now, September 2nd. It had been in late August, so it gets delayed by roughly a week or so. But then the main thing is that oral arguments in this case are going to be consolidated.
So there are two cases: one's called Stein v. Berger, one's called Stein v. Hull. Together, they have a lot of similar issues. But what will happen in the oral arguments is it's going to basically be split into two.
One is going to deal with the issue of judicial vacancies. And what the General Assembly did was change the state law under the old law, when a Court of Appeals judge or a state Supreme Court justice left the court before the end of the term, the governor could appoint a replacement and could really appoint anyone as long as they had the qualifications to be a judge. They could appoint anyone. And so, because we're in a very partisan environment, a Democratic governor appoints a Democratic judge, Republican governor would appoint a Republican judge. What the law said is that if you're replacing someone who was elected with a party affiliation, that you will have to replace that person.
With one of three names recommended by that party. And so Governor Josh Stein is challenging that. Part of the oral argument is going to be set aside solely for that issue. Both sides are going to get a half hour to debate that issue. And then everything else that's in these two suits is going to be lumped into another part of the oral arguments.
Each side will get 45 minutes, so a total of an hour and a half, to deal with. Basically, the changes in appointments to boards and commissions. That's not the entire issue because there's also whether parts of two previous. State Supreme Court precedents called McCrory v. Berger and Cooper v.
Berger from 2016 and 2018, whether they're going to be overruled or not. There's also the question about whether all of this debate is something for the courts to handle or whether it's actually a political question that should be left to the General Assembly and the executive branch, whichever one has the authority in that case.
So that's part of it. But the bulk of that part of the argument is whether the General Assembly had the authority to take appointments away from Governor Josh Stein and give them to either another member of the Council of State or in some instances to some other outside group. And that's really going to be the crux of that debate. The state Supreme Court has agreed to this plan that was put together jointly by Governor Stein and legislative leaders. And so at some point in November, the date has not been set yet.
Yet, but at some point in November, all of these lawyers, all of these justices will get together and for two and a half hours, they're going to hammer out what the various arguments are for and against what the General Assembly did. Yeah, a marathon session there, a two and a half hour oral argument as you just noted. Mitch, last time we talked about this, not to diminish any of the other challenges and arguments as it relates to a variety of different appointments to commissions and boards and things of that nature. You walked us through that this judicial vacancy one potentially had the most political impact moving forward here in North Carolina. Is that still your stance on this as we approach that likely sometime mid-November court date?
Yeah, I think that's true. I think it's the one that's probably of most significance to the people involved. It's also different enough from the other boards and commissions that you would set it aside, because basically this is a debate about whether the Constitution spells out any restrictions on what the General Assembly can do to limit the governor's appointment authority when there's a judicial vacancy of this sort.
Now, we haven't seen one in a while, but we have in the not too distant past seen cases where Republican members of the Court of Appeals have been elected to the state Supreme Court. I'm thinking specifically of Phil Berger Jr. or Richard Dietz. They were sitting Court of Appeals members, got elected to the state Supreme Court. And in filling their vacancies, the governor, rather than putting in another Republican, put in a Democrat.
And so that was one of the things that this new law was designed to change. And I think. Although there haven't been any vacancies since then, there's certainly a potential for that. We see right now that President Trump has three potential appointments to the U.S. District Court in North Carolina because of judges who have taken senior status or are going to take senior status.
Judge Willie Mostey, Judge Terrence Boyle, also Judge Thomas Schroeder, all of them saying that they're going to take senior status, which means that there could be three appointments. And it's entirely possible. that President Trump would want to look at a likely a Republican judge who's now sitting on the state Supreme Court or the state court of appeals. If that happened, then that law would come into effect and Governor Stein would either have to appoint someone who is suggested by the Republican Party, or if this law fails, he'll get to appoint a Democrat, which would be his first choice.
So I do think that has the most significance. Mitch, real quick, correct me if I'm wrong here, and maybe for those that are new to the state of North Carolina or maybe have not paid attention when they've gone through the process of voting when some of these judge races, more particularly the Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court, are on their ballots. And they may say, oh, well, we don't want politics and party affiliations as a part of this process. We already elect these individuals with party labels next to their names, correct? Yes, we do.
And for years and years, that was the case. And then when Democrats were in control of the General Assembly, they took party labels away from these elections. When Republicans took control of the General Assembly after the 2010 election, they worked as quickly as they could to get the party labels put back. And one of the arguments for it was that during the time when we had no party labels, the elections were partisan anyway. The Democrats would line up behind a candidate, Republicans would line up behind a candidate.
They would tell people, you know, vote for our guy, vote for our guy or our guy or gal. And people would basically just have to figure out. Who the Republican candidate was and who the Democrat candidate was without having that information on the ballot? It was very confusing. It was not a nonpartisan race.
It was not taking the politics out of the race. It was just making it less clear for voters who their choices were. Yeah, and of course, incredibly relevant as almost every other position outside of maybe some very low-level positions. I'm thinking like local soil and water commissioner races, almost everything else would have a party label on the ballot. We have more information on both of these legal stories: the COVID-19 bar update and this two-and-half-hour oral argument scheduled in front of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Those details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the update this morning. Mitch Coke from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good morning again, and welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM. WBT recapping our big story this morning: Mecklenburg County prosecutors are set to be seeking the death penalty against Tanya McKnight, who was the legal guardian accused of subjecting six-year-old Dominique Moody to prolonged abuse before the child's death in mid-December of 2025.
That sparked a lot of controversy when it happened. A hearing taking place at the North Carolina General Assembly in the month of June, and some changes moving forward for local child welfare and child care services across the state of North Carolina. This is the first time that the capital case has been tried in Mecklenburg County. Last time that happened was back in 2017. We'll be keeping a very close eye on this right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
That's going to do it for a Wednesday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. Granger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners.
Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog, HBAC on its last leg? If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Granger for quality products, easy reordering, and 24-7 support. Call 1-800GRA, clickgranger.com, or just stop by. Granger for the ones who get it done.
Yeah.
