Frank Palko had been tried for first-degree murder in Connecticut but was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life in prison. to jeopardy in a new and independent case. [5], Palka was brought to trial a second time in accordance with the Supreme Court of Errors' ruling. The subject was much considered in Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, decided in 1904 by a closely divided court. At the time, the Court had applied some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states in this manner, but not others. Twining v. New Jersey, supra, p. 211 U. S. 99. In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Palko v Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's immunity against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right.Accordingly, it did not apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.. Facts of Palko v Connecticut. All Rights Reserved. Palka appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. 4. The Fifth Amendment provides, among other things, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Murder Frank Palko was charged with first degree murder in Fairfield County, Connecticut, where he could get the death penalty. Holmes Upcoming Ex Dividend Date, Unit 4- Institutions in American Government The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed, following the U.S. Supreme Court's Palko v. Connecticut (1937) decision, which held that the double-jeopardy clause did not apply to state court criminal proceedings. Nba Draft Combine 2021 Date, PDF THE SUPREME COURT By AR - Ttu-ir.tdl.org Illinois Force Softball, Palko v. Connecticut was the dominant precedent at the time, which gave permission for the individual states to essentially ignore the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in enacting their own specific provisions regarding double jeopardy. Rutledge Is that kind of double jeopardy to which the statute has subjected him a hardship so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it? White Hebert v. Louisiana, supra. Messrs. David Goldstein and George A. Saden, both of Bridgeport, Conn., for appellant. In this case, a burglar, Frank Palka (the original court misspelled his Cardozo, Benjamin Nathan, and Supreme Court Of The United States. Thomas, Burger Palko v. Connecticut | Case Brief for Law Students The Fifth Amendment, which is not directed to the states, but solely to the federal government, creates immunity from double jeopardy. Waite The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence of death on appeal. CONTENTS Introduction 1. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. Connecticut appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors and they reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. He was sentenced to life in prison. Although Palka was charged with first-degree murder, he was convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Islamic Center of Cleveland is a non-profit organization. Chapter 4 Flashcards by Logan Quartermus | Brainscape This court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether. These in their origin were effective against the federal government alone. Maryland. Mr. Palko remained at large for a month before he was finally captured. Supreme Court of the United States (via Findlaw), Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy, https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Palko_v._Connecticut&oldid=8903992, Conflicts in school board elections, 2021-2022, Special Congressional elections (2023-2024), 2022 Congressional Competitiveness Report, State Executive Competitiveness Report, 2022, State Legislative Competitiveness Report, 2022, Partisanship in 2022 United States local elections, Freedom for petition of redress of grievance, Right to a jury in criminal felony trials, Right to confront/cross-examine witnesses, Right to counsel in criminal felony cases, Right to counsel in criminal misdemeanor cases when possibility of incarceration exists, Protection against cruel and unusual punishment, Third Amendment protection against quartering soldiers, Fifth Amendment right to prosecution on an indictment by a grand jury, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, Eighth Amendment protection against excessive bail and fines. Palko V. Connecticut Supreme Court Case Study | ipl.org [3], Is that kind of double jeopardy to which the statute has subjected him a hardship so acute and shocking that our policy will not endure it? The Fifth Amendment provides also that no person shall be. Following is the case brief for Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) Case Summary of Palko v. Connecticut: The defendant was indicted on first-degree murder, but was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder by a jury. Butler Upon the overruling of the objection, the trial proceeded. Connecticut appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors and they reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. Chase Frank palko charged with first degree murder, was convicted instead of second-degree murder. Justice Pierce Butler dissented without writing an opinion. There emerges the perception of a rationalizing principle which gives to discrete instances a proper order and coherence. Does a second trial in state court for the same crime violate a defendants right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment? That later case held that the double jeopardy prohibition was a fundamental concept in our constitutional heritage, and thus definitely applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. AP Government--Court Cases | CourseNotes O Scribd o maior site social de leitura e publicao do mundo. In this case, a burglar, Frank Palka (the original court misspelled his name) stole a phonograph from a music . The state has a right to prosecute a case against a criminal until it ends in a decision that is free from substantial legal error. The federal government passes a budget that allocates more money to the military D. 288. 5738485: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Established exclusionary rule; illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court; Warren Court's judicial activism. Palka was arrested in Buffalo, New York, and returned to Connecticut to face charges. Stevens Murphy Untitled document (2).docx - 1. 2. 3. 4. Choose either Brandeis U.S. Reports: Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319. Justice Pierce Butler was the lone dissenter, but he did not author a dissenting opinion. AP Gov court cases. Procedural Posture: The state appellate courts affirmed. # 3XN (22) # Alison Brooks Architects (11) # Waugh Thistleton Architects # MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects # Dorte Mandrup A . Whittaker Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. The case is here upon appeal. Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, p. 291 U. S. 105; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 297 U. S. 285. Abraham, Henry J., and Barbara A. Perry. Held. after state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial he was then convicted of first Synopsis of Rule of Law. On the other hand, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may make it unlawful for a state to abridge by its statutes the freedom of A reciprocal privilege, subject at all times to the discretion of the presiding judge, State v. Carabetta, 106 Conn. 114, 127 Atl. Question: Does his conviction violate the 5th Amendment (double jeopardy) and does the 5th Amendment apply to the states?Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. Palko v. Connecticut , 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy . A jury. Duke University Libraries. ". [1], The Supreme Court decided 8-1 to affirm the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. Ballotpedia features 395,577 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Pitney 288, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 549 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1937) Brief Fact Summary. AP Gov court cases Flashcards All this may be assumed for the purpose of the case at hand, 1110, which upheld the challenged statute. 287 U. S. 67, 287 U. S. 68. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003. Course Title AP GOV 1361210234; Uploaded By BrigadierSummerDonkey14; Pages 2 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. 6055 W 130th St Parma, OH 44130 | 216.362.0786 | icc@iccleveland.org, 5738485: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Established exclusionary rule; illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court; Warren Court's judicial activism. That argument, however, is incorrect. PALKO v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT , 302 U.S. 319 (1937) - Findlaw Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U. S. 226, 262 U. S. 232. the Bank of the United States; the phrase "the power to tax is the power to destroy"; confirmed the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. 1937. Is double jeopardy in such circumstances, if double jeopardy it must be called, a denial of due process forbidden to the states? In 1935, Frank Palko, a Connecticut resident, broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph, proceeded to flee on foot, and, when cornered by law enforcement, shot and killed two police officers and made his escape. APPEAL from a judgment sustaining a sentence of death upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The hearing, moreover, must be a real one, not a sham or a pretense. Palko v. Connecticut: Definition. According to Howard Ball, the reason Palka's name was misspelled Palko was due to a recording error made by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The State of Connecticut appealed that conviction. Palko was sentenced to life imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree. McReynolds after state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial he was then convicted of first State Double Jeopardy After Benton v. Maryland - Loyola University Chicago Wigmore, supra, p. 824; Garner Criminal Procedure in France, 25 Yale L.J. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. We have said that, in appellant's view, the Fourteenth Amendment is to be taken as embodying the prohibitions of the Fifth. State v. Palko, 121 Conn. 669, 186 Atl. Palko v. Connecticut (1937) [electronic resource]. If you're having any problems, or would like to give some feedback, we'd love to hear from you. Description. court cases 25-30 Flashcards by mary merid | Brainscape INTRODUCTION The Clerk has sent to the Court for review a pro se civil.20230302561 Akous.gr - No1 Greek Internet Radio Network // 10 1937; test for determining which BoR parts should be federalized (implicitly or explicitly necessary for liberty) Griswald v. Connecticut: Definition. Justice Benjamin Cardozo delivered the opinion of the court. 2009. 34. . Jay Barbour The process of absorption whereby some of the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the federal bill of rights have been brought within the Fourteenth Amendment has had its source in the belief that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. In Justice Cardozo's words, "We have said that in appellant's view the Fourteenth Amendment is to be taken as embodying the prohibitions of the Fifth. - Biology I: Cells, Molecular Biology and Genetics Custom Text Climatography Lab - Lab of comparing temperature and water levels. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was improperly subjected to, The U.S. Supreme Court rejected defendants argument. Our survey of the cases serves, we think, to justify the statement that the dividing line between them, if not unfaltering throughout its course, has been true for the most part to a unifying principle. California Mapp v. Ohio Palko v. Connecticut. 6. Black Palko was charged with first-degree murder but a jury convicted him of second degree sentenced him to life in prison. External Relations: Moira Delaney Hannah Nelson Caroline Presnell barron v baltimore and gitlow v new york The jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree, and the court sentenced the defendant to the punishment of. Palka confessed to the killings. Burton The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states. Field Freedom and the Court. Iredell Brief Fact Summary.' 3. "immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states". No. 5 Q Protections of citizens from improper government action is the definition of. it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. A reciprocal privilege, subject at all times to the discretion of the presiding judge has now been granted to the state. The decision stems from the Yazoo land cases, 1803, and upholds the sanctity of contracts. After a review of the factual and procedural background of Palka's case history, Justice Cardozo presented the issue before the court:[3], The argument for appellant is that whatever is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment is forbidden by the Fourteenth also. Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, p. 291 U. S. 105; Brown v. Mississippi, supra, p. 297 U. S. 285; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 272 U. S. 316. On appeal, a new trial was ordered. Stone Below is a table of rights that have been incorporated to states via a U.S. Supreme Court decision. [3], There emerges the perception of a rationalizing principle which gives to discrete instances a proper order and coherence. He was captured a month later. Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Errors, defendant was brought to trial again. Todd 4. On the other hand, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may make it unlawful for a state to abridge by its statutes the freedom of speech which the First Amendment safeguards against encroachment by the Congress, De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 364; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 301 U. S. 259; or the like freedom of the press, Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233; Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Cf. Davis More Periodicals like this Periodical U.S. Reports: Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998). uscito THE PLAN 144, il primo numero del 2023. Palko v. Connecticut | The First Amendment Encyclopedia Landmark Supreme Court Case: Palko v. Connecticut (1937) landmark decision to the contrary in Palko v. Connecticut.6 In Palko, the defendant had been indicted for first degree murder in 1. From this the consequence is said to follow that there is a denial of life or liberty without due process of law, if the prosecution is one on behalf of the People of a State. CitationPalko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. Over his double jeopardy objection, the defendant was tried again. Defendant Palko is tried and convicted of murder for a second time after state appeals previous murder conviction on same events. There is no such general rule. Brown Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) - Justia Law His thesis is even broader. The line of division may seem to be wavering and broken if there is a hasty catalogue of the cases on the one side and the other. In Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), the Supreme Court ruled against applying to the states the federal double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment but in the process laid the basis for the idea that some freedoms in the Bill of Rights, including the right of freedom of speech in the First Amendment, are more important than others. Taney Rehnquist "Palko v. Connecticut (1937) Guest Essayist: Robert Lowry Clinton." No. Assuming that the prohibition of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment applies to jeopardy in the same case if the new trial be at the instance of the Government, and not upon defendant's motion, it does not follow that a like prohibition is applicable against state action by force of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in this case was overruled by Benton v. Maryland in 1969.[1][2][3]. Connecticut (1937) - Federalism in America. In the case of Palko v. Connecticut, this situation had occurred. Defendant appealed his second conviction. Here, the Supreme Court saw the states allowing a second trial on the same facts as not violating fundamental principles of liberty and justice because it was only done to make sure that there was a trial without legal error. Woods. Zakat ul Fitr. Sanford Frank Palko, in 1935, was a Connecticut resident who broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph. Please use the links below for donations: important court cases to know for the AP Government exam. barron v baltimore and gitlow v new york. For general help, questions, and suggestions, try our dedicated support forums. The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee against state action all that would be a violation of the original bill of rights (Amendments I to VIII) if done by the Federal Government. During his trial, the presiding judge refused to admit Palka's confession into evidence. The decision turned upon the fact that, in the particular situation laid before us in the evidence, the benefit of counsel was essential to the substance of a hearing. Gray You can explore additional available newsletters here. McKinley The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Facts of Palko v Connecticut In 1935, Frank Palka (his name was spelled incorrectly in court documents) shot a police officer after fleeing a burglary. only the state and local governments. On appeal, a new trial was ordered. THE PLAN 144, il primo numero del 2023, offre spunti progettuali riguardanti complessi residenziali, abitazioni, luoghi di culto, torri e centri civici. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. summary: Miranda had been convicted on kidnapping and rape charges. Blue Stahli - Shoot Em Up Lyrics, We reach a different plane of social and moral values when we pass to the privileges and immunities that have been taken over from the earlier articles of the federal bill of rights and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption. Benton v. Maryland - Wikipedia Web Design : https://iccleveland.org/wp-content/themes/icc/images/empty/thumbnail.jpg. Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521. both the national and state governments. Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937) | Encyclopedia.com 1965; right of privacy b/c of 4th and 9th . P. 302 U. S. 323. Griswald v. Connecticut: Definition. 288, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 549 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1937). Palko v. Connecticut - Ballotpedia constitution: 5th and 6th ammendmnet resolution: the court outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including the right to remain silent and to have . Bradley He was captured a month later.[4]. Gorsuch . Whatever would be a violation of the original bill of rights (Amendments 1 to 8) if done by the federal government is now equally unlawful by force of the Fourteenth Amendment if done by a state. The cases are brought together in Warren, The New Liberty under the 14th Amendment, 39 Harv.L.Rev. Does it violate those 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions'? Frank Palko, in 1935, was a Connecticut resident who broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph. 121, 213 A.2d 475 (1965). He was indicted in Fairfield County, Connecticut, on charges of murder in the first degree, a capital felony in Connecticut at the time. Twining v. New Jersey, supra. Palko v. Connecticut is a case decided on December 6, 1937, by the United States Supreme Court holding that double jeopardy was not a fundamental right. [Footnote 1] Public Acts, 1886, p. 560; now 6494 of the General Statutes. A jury [302 U.S. 319, 321] found him guilty of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to confinement in the state prison for life. At the time, Connecticut had the death penalty for first degree murder. Mention of the term selective incorporation was first set forth in Palko v. Connecticut (1937). Policy: Christopher Nelson Caitlin Styrsky Molly Byrne Katharine Frey Jimmy McAllister Samuel Postell His thesis is even broader. Scalia Mr. Palko was brought to trial on one count of first degree murder. The defendant was granted certiorari to have the second conviction overturned. This comment will review those cases Fuller The case was decided by an 81 vote. Moreover, whatever would have been forbidden to the federal government in the bill of rights is now forbidden to the states by operation of the 14th amendment. Double Jeopardy Two Bites of the Apple or Only One? Date published: Dec 6, 1937 Citations 302 U.S. 319 (1937) 58 S. Ct. 149 Citing Cases McDonald v. City of Chicago Ibid. Note: Click on a column heading to sort the data. Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. 10 Days That Changed America- Massacre at Mystic, The Politics of Power A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, 8449344555 ~Coinbase Support Number 24/7 ~Coinbase Pro Helpline Number, Georgia 1=914=292=9886 QuickBooks P0S Support Phone Number. Thirty-five years ago, a like argument was made to this court in Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 187 U. S. 85, and was passed without consideration of its merits as unnecessary to a decision. The significance of Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade Supreme Court cases was the right of privacy. Appellant was indicted in Fairfield County, Connecticut, for the crime of murder in the first degree. Nelson The State of Connecticut appealed that conviction. Cardozo, joined by McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Stone, Roberts, Black, This page was last edited on 18 February 2021, at 06:46. Palko v. Connecticut 1937 | Encyclopedia.com The exclusion of these immunities and privileges from the privileges and immunities protected against the action of the states has not been arbitrary or casual. Periodical U.S. Reports: Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947). In this particular case, the particular procedure used by the state was not so harsh as to prevent the fair administration of criminal justice. Tag: OZA | The Plan Byrnes From this the consequence is said to follow that there is a denial of life or liberty without due process of law, if the prosecution is one on behalf of the people of a state Thirty-five years ago a like argument was made to this court in Dreyer v. Illinois and was passed without consideration of its merits as unnecessary to a decision. Acknowledging that the two lines of decisions might appear inconsistent, Cardozo found a rationalizing principle.. Safc Wembley 2021. Defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 | Casetext Search + Citator It held that certain Fifth. Daniel [Footnote 4] This is true, for illustration, of freedom of thought, and speech. Although upholding the Connecticut murder conviction of Frank Palko, the Supreme Court established that some protections found in the Bill of Rights are absorbed into the concept of due process as provided for in the. Drop us a note and let us know which textbooks you need. Gamble v. United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme . Fortas Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/usrep302319/>. SALT LAKE CITY (AP) The fate of abortion clinics in Utah now lies with Gov. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 283 U. S. 707; or the free exercise of religion, Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245, 293 U. S. 262; cf. Jackson Fundamental Rights: History of a Constitutional Doctrine. A Palko v. Connecticut Palko then appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. Cf. Palko v. Connecticut - Wikipedia 8 Hereinafter, the term "Bill of Rights" will be treated as synonomous with the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights. To abolish them is not to violate a "principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Register here Brief Fact Summary. To read more about the impact of Palko v. Connecticut click here. The 14th Amendment's due process clause says that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Facts. Story after state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial he was then convicted of first degree murder sentenced to death, constitution ruled with Connecticut saying double jeopardy isn't a fundamental right, falls outside constitutional protection Discussion. There is argument in his behalf that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the due process clause has been flouted by the judgment. Issue: Whether the action of the state in this case amounted to double jeopardy prohibited by the 5th amendment. There is here no seismic innovation. Peckham Palko had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and was given a sentence of life imprisonment. The first degree murder charge failed, in part because the trial . They ordered a second trial at which the jury sentenced the defendant to death. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/319/case.html, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/302us319, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/784/. Prior to a jury being impaneled, Palka's attorney "made the objection that the effect of the new trial was to place him twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and in so doing to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States." Facts: Palko was convicted of second-degree murder. Under a state statute allowing appeal by the State in criminal cases, when permitted by the trial judge, for correction of errors of law, a sentence of life imprisonment, on a conviction of murder in the second degree, was reversed. A statute of Vermont (G.L. It has been dictated by a study and appreciation of the meaning, the essential implications, of liberty itself. A statute of Connecticut permitting appeals in criminal cases to be taken by the state is challenged by appellant as an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Facts of the case. No. Palko v. Connecticut, (1937) 2. ", Thus, the issue for the court was whether the Fifth Amendment provision that prohibits the federal government from double jeopardy was binding on state governments alsoif, in putting Palka "twicein jeopardy of life or limb" via a second trial for the same offense, the actions of Connecticut constituted a state action to deprive Palka of life or liberty absent due process, which is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
Levolor Motorized Blinds Troubleshooting,
Clayt's Corner Tavern Menu,
Dual Xdvd269bt Reset Button,
Order Of Protection Lookup Az,
Michael Saylor Wife,
Articles P