Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry
Examiner ^ | May 16th | Howard Portnoy

Posted on 05/16/2011 9:22:18 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing

In a move that flies not only in the face of the U.S. Constitution but defies common law dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that residents of the Hoosier state have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David, writing for the majority, expressed the view that

a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fourthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
Do not resist, or we will bury you.

The insanity continues.

1 posted on 05/16/2011 9:22:26 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

The bedrock of a totalitarian state. Might makes right.


2 posted on 05/16/2011 9:25:09 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Your party left you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

WHAT THE F-ING F?????????????????????

People should start rioting over this one


3 posted on 05/16/2011 9:27:24 AM PDT by Mr. K (this administration is WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY~!! [Palin/Bachman 2012])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

The Court’s Majority Opinion was written by Judge David. A Mitch Daniel’s appointee. In case we needed any more proof Daniels isn’t fit for the Presidency.


4 posted on 05/16/2011 9:27:28 AM PDT by antonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry
 
05/16/2011 9:22:18 AM PDT · by Halfmanhalfamazing · 3 replies
Examiner ^ | May 16th | Howard Portnoy
In a move that flies not only in the face of the U.S. Constitution but defies common law dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that residents of the Hoosier state have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David, writing for the majority, expressed the view that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and...
 

Indiana Supreme Court rules Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful entry of homes by police
 
05/16/2011 8:46:27 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 32 replies
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Bruce McQuain
No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious: Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if...
 

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home‏
 
05/16/2011 6:25:46 AM PDT · by Cheeks · 42 replies
nwitimes.com ^ | 5/13 | Dan Carden
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry. "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David...
 

No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry: Indiana Supremes
 
05/15/2011 8:17:50 AM PDT · by KeyLargo · 64 replies
Outside the Beltway ^ | May 14, 2011 | James Joyner
Outside the Beltway No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry: Indiana Supremes James Joyner May 14, 2011 For as long as the notion of individual rights has existed, one of them has been the notion that one’s home is sacrosanct. As of Thursday, that’s no longer true in Indiana. AP (“Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry“): People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law. The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers...
 

(Indiana) Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry
 
05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT · by markomalley · 138 replies
AP/Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/13/11
People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law. The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said. "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment...
 

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
 
05/13/2011 6:33:44 PM PDT · by WildSnail · 81 replies
NWI Times ^ | Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm | Dan Carden
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
 

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
 
05/13/2011 6:33:44 PM PDT · by WildSnail · 81 replies
NWI Times ^ | Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm | Dan Carden
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
 

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home[Indiana]
 
05/13/2011 6:35:22 AM PDT · by jaydubya2 · 194 replies
nwitimes ^ | Thursday, May 12, 2011 | Dan Carden
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry. "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David...

5 posted on 05/16/2011 9:29:12 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islamophobia: The fear of offending Muslims because they are prone to violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Unbelieveable. Velkome to Amerika.


6 posted on 05/16/2011 9:29:27 AM PDT by Brownie63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
And what will our “conservatives?” say about this? Nothing! The airwaves will be full of more important things. Like, what rapper gets invited to the White House, what mean thing George Soros said, and calling Ron Paul crazy.
7 posted on 05/16/2011 9:30:41 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (I'd rather be Plaxico Burress than Sean Taylor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antonico
The "judge" is a fool is all that can be said.

He obviously has not considered the consequences, intended or unintended.

8 posted on 05/16/2011 9:32:30 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Give war a chance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
You have a whole lot of threads on this topic already prepared. Just do a search for INDIANA.

Nope, there was no illegal entry. Guy didn't live there. Woman who did called in the cops. End of story. This was a case of a new Chief Justice who'd been a colonel most of his life taking a chance to pontificate and beat people over the head.

He should be removed for that.

9 posted on 05/16/2011 9:33:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
There is this little problem for that piece of sh-- law in Indiana. It is called the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

10 posted on 05/16/2011 9:33:59 AM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, Iconoclast: THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments

Rush started his show saying this is the most important thing that isn’t being reported. He’s on a tangent.


11 posted on 05/16/2011 9:34:18 AM PDT by peridot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Thanks for the list.


12 posted on 05/16/2011 9:34:35 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: peridot

Rush’s fact checkers were probably resting up from the weekend. Gad.


13 posted on 05/16/2011 9:35:36 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments

Oh, I don’t know. We have time for all that and the Constitution too.


14 posted on 05/16/2011 9:36:19 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

It’s not a Fourth Amendment case. Read it.


15 posted on 05/16/2011 9:36:49 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: peridot

Good for him! I’m shocked.


16 posted on 05/16/2011 9:37:31 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (I'd rather be Plaxico Burress than Sean Taylor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Sorry. I searched, but clearly I didn’t do a good job.


17 posted on 05/16/2011 9:37:44 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

These people are friggin’ insane!


18 posted on 05/16/2011 9:38:19 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment; this will be overturned by a higher court very soon.

The judges voting for this were/are ignorant fools, unsuitable for the positions they hold.


19 posted on 05/16/2011 9:38:37 AM PDT by Jack Hammer (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

many threads, one


20 posted on 05/16/2011 9:39:11 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch (r e p e n t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

The English fought this battle with King John and prevailed and James Otis fought this battle with the British in the Writs of Assistance case and prevailed.

We don’t need to pay attention to these judges and their “opinions.”

If a police officer or any other “official” enters your home without cause or without a warrant, shoot him dead just as you would any other criminal.


21 posted on 05/16/2011 9:48:30 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Daniels appointed this slug who wrote the opinion..

And many here are touting this idiot Mitch Daniels for president.

God save us!


22 posted on 05/16/2011 9:48:56 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (One of these days, Alice....one of these days.....POW!! Right in the kisser!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Keep your powder dry, a civil war is about to start.


23 posted on 05/16/2011 9:58:26 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/supreme.html

I don’t know...sees like Barnes was in the right here and its the Court who is wrong.

The Ciourt is saying to allow the ploice in to do what they want and file a complaint later.

That sounds like bull...file a complaint???? You kiddin me?


24 posted on 05/16/2011 10:03:15 AM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Liberal Judges, Liberal Politicians, Liberal Academics - will all lead eventually to a Totalitarian State.


25 posted on 05/16/2011 10:04:17 AM PDT by sjmjax (Politicans are like bananas - they start out green, turn yellow, then rot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/supreme.html

I don’t know...seems like Barnes was in the right here and its the Court who is wrong.

The Court is saying to allow the police in to do what they want and file a complaint later.

That sounds like bull...file a complaint???? You kiddin me? So it can be ignored?

This particular case seems a bit tough because it involved “do-mestic violence” and we all know if a woman complains she is immediately in the right, giving police powers they would not normally posess. In a sense Barnes is lucky he was not simply killed for upsetting a woman.[/sarc]

Sorry, tho I am no lawyer nor do I play one on tv, I do see the 4th ammendment issues here, from reading the case history: Barnes denied the cops entry and they requested entry. They did not say the had cause they requested entry and he said no and the woman did not give permission either. Not sure why that isn’t 4th ammendment territory.


26 posted on 05/16/2011 10:09:20 AM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Sorry for the sloppy first post...tried to stop it....


27 posted on 05/16/2011 10:11:48 AM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Logical me; Halfmanhalfamazing; All

This doesn’t cancel the 4th amendment - although it surely is not friendly to the 4th amendment. They do encourage people to pursue legal action AFTER any arrests or seizures are made. They still acknowledge the 4th amendment here. (But I wish to repeat: They are TRYING to supercede it)

Right now, even outside of Indiana, if the police come knocking at my door, even forcefully - EVEN IN PLAIN CLOTHES - What am I to do ?

Do I start shooting ? Do I take them all down ? Do I run ? I’ll be caught ! I’ll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and I do believe that killing a LEO carries a broader penalty across all states. Even armed with a 4th amendment - What do I do ? Politely ask them to leave ? Make them at gun point ?

Chances are, any of these options will see me zipped up in a body bag before nightfall. Even if I’m totally in the right - could be the most righteous kill in the world - I’m still not going to be able to resist a police raid with or without this new Indiana law.

Nothing has changed, sadly.


28 posted on 05/16/2011 10:12:32 AM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

“a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence”

Isn’t this absolutely the opposite of fourth amendment jurisprudence?


29 posted on 05/16/2011 10:24:06 AM PDT by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“It’s not a Fourth Amendment case. Read it.”

I think it doesn’t matter if it’s a fourth amendment case. The ruling is a violation of it whether it’s a fourth amendment case or not.


30 posted on 05/16/2011 10:27:12 AM PDT by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Ms Kimber, Smith and Wesson voted 3-0 voted the other way.


31 posted on 05/16/2011 10:29:47 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celerity
They do encourage people to pursue legal action AFTER any arrests or seizures are made.

Much easier to CYA and obfuscate things AFTER the fact.

We need to stand up against this, NOW. Of all the other slippery slopes we've gone down, this one is a bad one.

32 posted on 05/16/2011 10:31:28 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: antonico
In case we needed any more proof Daniels isn’t fit for the Presidency

Unfortunately one person (the governor) can't control 100% of the thoughts of one individual (The SC justice). Think GHB and Souter. Souter certainly didn't turn out to be a positive in grand scheme of things.

33 posted on 05/16/2011 10:31:28 AM PDT by A_Tradition_Continues (formerly known as Politicalwit ...05/28/98 Class of '98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
“The court's decision arises out of a case in which a husband and wife were arguing outside their apartment. When police arrived to investigate, the couple retreated into their domicile. The husband attempted to close the door, but one officer forced his way into the apartment. The husband shoved the intruder against a wall, whereupon a second officer used a stun gun on the man and arrested him.”

If the woman was in danger of harm the officers had a duty to intervene. If this was a simple argument between a husband and wife and there was no danger, this is most definitely a 4th amendment issue. It was a 3-2 decision.

34 posted on 05/16/2011 10:33:59 AM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, Iconoclast: THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
Souter certainly didn't turn out to be a positive in grand scheme of things.

Oh, puh-leeze. The GOP knew exactly what Souter was. As they did with O'Connor. As Nancy said, they never gave a d*** about pro-lifers. They got exactly what they wanted. And we just let them walk all over us.

35 posted on 05/16/2011 10:38:52 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (I'd rather be Plaxico Burress than Sean Taylor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Shake out a few over here

36 posted on 05/16/2011 10:46:58 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: antonico

Palin appointed a Planned Parenthood director to Alaska’s Supreme Court...what are you feelings on that?


37 posted on 05/16/2011 10:54:00 AM PDT by wtc911 ("How you gonna get down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
Nope, the guy had been OUTSIDE when told the cops he no longer lived there.

The woman had called the cops ~ they didn't just wander in imagining they'd be investigating something. They answered a call for help.

It turned into a kidnapping. He had no goods there. She pleaded with him to open the door and get out of the way.

He got off the hook with three minor felony charges. He should have gone up the river for life eh!

38 posted on 05/16/2011 11:00:44 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
BTW, SHE CALLED THE COPS the first chance she got alone away from this guy. SHE CALLED. THEY ANSWERED.

There was no unlawful entry.

39 posted on 05/16/2011 11:02:33 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
If you read the case you know what it's really about. If this guy appealed to a federal court and they reversed the state supreme court decision he'd still be in jail on a conviction for 3 felonies, none of which were a consequence of an unlawful entry.

If he got a reverse and remand to the trial court, the Prosecutor can bring in the kidnapping or unlawful detention charge he should have laid on the guy.

The cops responded to the call from the woman who lived in the apartment. The guy had moved out. Not his apartment. They lawfully entered the apartment.

40 posted on 05/16/2011 11:05:26 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

On the heels of the AZ slaughter of an innocent man, this may end up in the USSC?


41 posted on 05/16/2011 11:06:20 AM PDT by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I suppose you think the cops should not respond to 911 calls?


42 posted on 05/16/2011 11:06:33 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Castigar

No one will bring this case up to cite it in another case.


43 posted on 05/16/2011 11:07:36 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Celerity
Washington led the army out after the guys making untaxed whiskey and not paying the tax. Even shot a guy.

Now, did they have the 4th amendment on their side?

44 posted on 05/16/2011 11:10:19 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Any other words you want to put in my mouth? Careful, I have sharp teeth...

Of course the police should respond to 911 calls. But, comma, however... Rulings like this can be construed as giving them unlimited power to enter any home at any time for any reason.

You can throw the BS flag if you want, but now think of how a privacy ruling became a National mandate on abortion and how Eminent Domain was used to take private property away to give it to another private interest.

If you can't see how this ruling is BAD, then there is ZERO hope for you. Period.

45 posted on 05/16/2011 11:14:53 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
This was a single ruling in a single case with unique facts ~ one of the facts was that the "ruling" was about something that didn't happen.

Now, back to the question, do you favor having the cops answer 911 calls, or just waiting till whatever happens has happened?

There are a lot of police forces who do that ~ just stay away ~ when they leave the stationhouse they pick up chalk and tape on the way!

They know.

46 posted on 05/16/2011 11:42:15 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
This was a single ruling in a single case with unique facts ~ one of the facts was that the "ruling" was about something that didn't happen.

Now, back to the question, do you favor having the cops answer 911 calls, or just waiting till whatever happens has happened?

There are a lot of police forces who do that ~ just stay away ~ when they leave the stationhouse they pick up chalk and tape on the way!

They know.

47 posted on 05/16/2011 11:42:30 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Exactly. The issue is not the particular case, in which the cops were quite probably justified in entering the house, it is that the decision exceeds the bounds of the case. It says that law enforcement can't be resisted in any case. That's where it conflicts with the Fourth.
48 posted on 05/16/2011 11:46:31 AM PDT by old3030 (I lost some time once. It's always in the last place you look.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Everything starts out as a "single" something... How many times has that slowed them down?

Now, back to the question, do you favor having the cops answer 911 calls, or just waiting till whatever happens has happened?

Already answered.

Are you in favor of a drunk off duty cop busting in to his neighbors house?

49 posted on 05/16/2011 11:49:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: old3030

That’s how I read it too. There are factors at work in our government that would LOVE to get their hands on this kind of power...


50 posted on 05/16/2011 11:53:40 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson