Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Net providers begin warning of illegal downloads
Myfoxny.com/AP ^ | Monday, February 25, 2013 7:10 PM | ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press

Posted on 02/26/2013 4:36:57 AM PST by Mad Dawgg

WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet users who illegally share music, movies or television shows online could soon receive warning notices from the nation's five major Internet service providers.

The Copyright Alert System, organized by the recording and film industry, is being activated this week to target consumers using peer-to-peer software.

Under the new system, complaints will prompt an Internet service provider — such as Verizon or AT&T — to notify a customer whose Internet address has been detected sharing files illegally. A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS: obamanation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
Here is the money quote: "Consumers who maintain they have been wrongly accused would be forced to pay $35 to appeal the decision. The fee would be reimbursed if they prevail." Guilty Until Proven Innocent! Thanks Obama!
1 posted on 02/26/2013 4:37:12 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

It will be a selected enforcement effort.


2 posted on 02/26/2013 4:39:02 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

And soon, people will have to pay $35 to appeal the accusation they visited Right wing websites before the administration takes more serious action....

I hate piracy, but this is BS.


3 posted on 02/26/2013 4:39:59 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

How do they determine stolen? by file size? Can’t wait to see the bureaucracy put in place to administer legit sites complete with all software downloads being tracked and registered.

Just need a fee to have your company listed.

Then ISP’s will refuse service to your site unless you are.

Then you are refused registration to begin with and locked out of the net.


4 posted on 02/26/2013 4:43:04 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Two words to say:

Use and Net.


5 posted on 02/26/2013 4:50:32 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

In other words, an alternate internet.


6 posted on 02/26/2013 5:12:17 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
How do they determine stolen? by file size?

I read recently that file size (amounts of downloads) would be one factor.

However, there are peer-to-peer (torrents) that are legal. CNN streaming used to use one version. Many Linux distro websites use them. Some Internet video creators use them.

Some days, I watch many Netflix videos. Other days, I watch online (via network/cable websites) videos. My ISP allows me 200gb per month of Internet traffic for my level of service. I tend to use much less than 50% of that. Some months, my usage is only about 30gb; other months, it exceeds 100gb or more, espcially if Netflix, for example, has a 'series' that is expiring soon.

Many 'legal' software updates now exceed 100mb and many 'legal' software packages exceed 250mb.

The 'policing organization' could easily turn into a righthaven-type strong-arm thug group.


7 posted on 02/26/2013 5:37:49 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

“The ‘policing organization’ could easily turn into a righthaven-type strong-arm thug group.”

Exactly. I don’t do Netflix but I do download legal software/sample libraries (gigabyte szed) for my music hobby. From companies here and overseas. Lots of these are small one/two people shops.

Why do I get the feeling that suddenly all such places would be tagged as ‘illegal sites’ since they are under no obligation to pay some to be created ‘fee’ to the US govt.

The Mafia must be envious.


8 posted on 02/26/2013 5:43:30 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

And if you send him $500,000 you can meet with him 4 times a year and he might even throw in an ambassadorship.


9 posted on 02/26/2013 5:47:07 AM PST by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT

I am going to go against the grain here, but on a quick read, this seems more than fair to me.

“A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.

Consumers who maintain they have been wrongly accused would be forced to pay $35 to appeal the decision. The fee would be reimbursed if they prevail.”

Compare this with some of the previous attempts where you get some kid sharing some CD tracks, and gets hauled into court and hit with fines north of $100,000 for sharing $15 worth of music.

If you get warned 3-4-5 times, seems to me you have ample opportunity to figure out what is going on, and avoid any problems.


10 posted on 02/26/2013 6:17:01 AM PST by qwerty1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

What if someone keeps their wireless router open as a form of charity?

Unless the government goes in and physically analyzes your hardware, IP doesn’t prove anything.

Or will leaving a router open be outlawed too?


11 posted on 02/26/2013 6:27:37 AM PST by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

The usenet files are text, either base-64 or yenc encoded, but their MD5 might still be on file.

Of course, posters can rar up and hashsalt the files, but they won’t always do that. So I would recommend a usenet provider who offers port 443 as well as port 115.


12 posted on 02/26/2013 6:29:31 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

They’ll probably check the MD5 of your download against a list of copyrighted files.


13 posted on 02/26/2013 6:32:02 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

I plead ignorance. What’s an MD5?


14 posted on 02/26/2013 6:33:14 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: qwerty1234
"Compare this with some of the previous attempts where you get some kid sharing some CD tracks, and gets hauled into court and hit with fines north of $100,000 for sharing $15 worth of music."

If you get warned 3-4-5 times, seems to me you have ample opportunity to figure out what is going on, and avoid any problems."

Yeah I agree let's do away with all that "due process" nonsense and get right from accusation to punishment. Think how such will streamline our legal system. Police can just arrest you because they have a hunch no warrant necessary.

OR we could do it like the Constitution sez we have to. Though its just so hard for government and Big corps to go through those hoops set up by smart old white guys. Lets just let them do what they deem is appropriate right?

And like you say its better than it used to be. They would wrongly accuse someone of filesharing and sue them for millions of dollars. Now they can wrongly accuse someone of files sharing and just charge them 35 dollars.

I wonder if they will use stocky Italian guys to deliver the message that you need to pay up?

"Nice internet Connection you have there Sport. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."

15 posted on 02/26/2013 6:35:50 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

Leaving your router open is really dumb. You have no way of controlling who uses it or what they use it for. Pervert driving down the street downloads kiddie porn, and suddenly you have the FBI knocking down your door. Even if you aren’t actually convicted of anything, you never want to be in those crosshairs.


16 posted on 02/26/2013 6:48:36 AM PST by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
What if someone keeps their wireless router open as a form of charity?

No good deed goes unpunished. Lock it down with WPA2. Turn off the SSID broadcasts. Add the MAC filter so only your devices are accepted. Block access to "sharing" sites with your firewall. That might be enough to keep the creepy lawyers away. Hopefully you didn't leave your systems wide open to having some kiddie porn stored on your hard disks.

Unless the government goes in and physically analyzes your hardware, IP doesn’t prove anything.

Plan on it. IP traces and a knock on the door with a warrant to seize your router and all the computers on your network. The forensics team will have a field day with your equipment. If you have any doubt, just check out the courses offered by SANS. That where the security pros go to get trained. The same people who will be going over your equipment with a fine tooth comb.

Many years ago I was active on a seismology bulletin board. A foul mouthed individual began trolling and leaving nasty messages. I analyzed the message headers and traced it all the way down to a specifically named computer inside the SEAL offices in Coronado. I was able to identify the time stamps on the messages. I contacted the office and they made the "problem" go away.

17 posted on 02/26/2013 6:55:54 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Its a hashing algorithm that converts a file of any size into a 128-bit number. While there are some collisions possible, it has good uniqueness and is usable for this purpose.

Copyright owners would provide a list of the MD5 hashes of their files, and the ISP would hash each file its users download and compare to the list.


18 posted on 02/26/2013 7:07:09 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; Norm Lenhart; varyouga
This is a voluntary arrangement between copyright holders and Internet service providers - no government muscle involved.
19 posted on 02/26/2013 7:07:09 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

If I understand you right, say I’m a pirate (Avast ye Freeper scum! ;) and I get “Spiderman 45 - The will to Homosexuality” to redistribute. It is hashed. So I zip it, thus hiding the actual file and changing the file size.

Doesn’t that pretty much defeat the scheme?


20 posted on 02/26/2013 7:13:01 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

My situation is a bit murky here... many of the games I would purchase are not offered here at all (or have a version that has no English)...

The ONLY option I have, is to get a pirated version :/


21 posted on 02/26/2013 8:31:29 AM PST by Bikkuri (Hope for Conservative push in the next 2-4 years..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Oh... and what is with the “pirated TV shows”?!?! seriously?!


22 posted on 02/26/2013 8:32:54 AM PST by Bikkuri (Hope for Conservative push in the next 2-4 years..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

so they have set up a PRIVATE court tribunal?

This scam is going to fail like the previous scam.


23 posted on 02/26/2013 8:35:10 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
Why do I get the feeling that suddenly all such places would be tagged as ‘illegal sites’ since they are under no obligation to pay some to be created ‘fee’ to the US govt.



Not to mention the fact that USA is the ONLY country to tax citizens that are working OUTSIDE of the country :/
24 posted on 02/26/2013 8:36:38 AM PST by Bikkuri (Hope for Conservative push in the next 2-4 years..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY


25 posted on 02/26/2013 8:40:16 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

What wasn’t mentioned is that the MD5 is actually used to make sure that the file you downloaded IS the original file, not in any way modified...


26 posted on 02/26/2013 8:40:16 AM PST by Bikkuri (Hope for Conservative push in the next 2-4 years..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
so they have set up a PRIVATE court tribunal?

That in no way deprives you of the option of suing your ISP for breach of contract. (Better read that contract first, though.)

This scam is going to fail like the previous scam.

If by "the previous scam" you mean the RIAA lawsuits, that was a whole 'nother animal.

27 posted on 02/26/2013 10:05:14 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Most guys would salt the zip, just in case. You create a file called ‘salt.text’, put a short random string of characters in it, and zip it up with the file you want to distribute. This guarantees that the signature if the zip will not be on file anywhere.

Of course, none of us honest guys would ever actually do anything like this, right?


28 posted on 02/26/2013 12:01:50 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
The deal was brokered by the White House.

"ISPs had balked at adopting a graduated response plan for years. But last month, CNET reported that the White House was instrumental in encouraging the parties to reach an agreement, sources with knowledge of the talks said at the time. President Obama has said intellectual property is important to the country's economy and has vowed to step up the fight against piracy and counterfeiting.

Obama to Big Media: "The Justice Dept. will not hammer you for skipping due process as long as you stuff my campaign coffers full of cash." (Why else do you think they waited to start implementation until AFTER the election! They've had the agreement since Summer of 2011.)

29 posted on 02/26/2013 12:48:09 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

I’m as anti piracy as you’ll ever find. It’s just ridiculous any agency would waste effort on a sys so easily defeated. Almost a token effort to say they did something, one might think.


30 posted on 02/26/2013 12:51:27 PM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
This is a voluntary arrangement between copyright holders and Internet service providers - no government muscle involved.

the White House was instrumental in encouraging the parties to reach an agreement

Like I said.

31 posted on 02/26/2013 12:54:12 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
due process

An issue in court proceedings, not in private actions pursuant to terms of contract.

32 posted on 02/26/2013 12:56:49 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"An issue in court proceedings, not in private actions pursuant to terms of contract."

Ahhh they are accusing people of a crime. and then punishing them for it.

Either File sharing is illegal or it is not. The MPAA/RIAA lost numerous times in court TRYING to do the same thing they are doing now, only this time by bypassing due process. See the judges told them they had no case if they could not prove the ISP account holder was doing the downloading. The straw that broke the camels back and made the judges take notice is when the RIAA/MPAA sued a woman for filesharing in one year. Yet she had died over 12 months before that. Her wireless router was left on and people living close to her apt. used it to fileshare. The courts told them they had to obtain warrants and get forensic evidence of illegal files on the ISP customer's equipment or no dice. When they kept failing to get forensic evidence the cases got tossed.

Its not about a contract its about them circumventing the legal system.

Obama guaranteed his Justice Dept would not get involved. Even though what big media is doing falls under RICO.

If it was simply a contract dispute BIG MEDIA would have never went the legal route. Do you think if it were this easy they would have wasted all that time and money? The Bush Admin would have never allowed this. Without the Justice Dept scrutinizing every aspect of it.

Bottom line: "The ISPs nor the MPAA/RIAA nor the Justice dept. cannont see past the router without breaking the law, unless they get a warrant."

Now with the backing of the White House the RIAA/MPAA can accuse whomever they wish and the ISPs will shut the account down AND the only way to clear your name is to pony up cash!

33 posted on 02/26/2013 1:19:35 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Look, most internet userr are as dumb as dodos. They will catch plenty of people this way, so why worry about the smart ones?


34 posted on 02/26/2013 1:42:02 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

Which won’t work on compressed and encrypted files.

So I give my encryption key to a few friends that I may (or may not) exchange movies with on my secure media server and no ones the wiser.


35 posted on 02/26/2013 1:48:20 PM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

I’m worried about the creation of another extra legal agency that will needlessly screw law abiding internet users.

The rest, I hope they get caught.


36 posted on 02/26/2013 1:55:21 PM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
An issue in court proceedings, not in private actions pursuant to terms of contract.

Ahhh they are accusing people of a crime.

No, a breach of contract.

The MPAA/RIAA lost numerous times in court TRYING to do the same thing they are doing now

Not the same thing - MPAA/RIAA were plaintiffs seeking damages, whereas ISPs will appear in court only if sued and then as defendants.

37 posted on 02/26/2013 2:11:43 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
OK How are they supposedly breaching the contract?
38 posted on 02/26/2013 3:11:47 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

It’s nothing more than Napster 2.0. The media companies were using the same strong arm tactics and abusing the judicial system and many innocent individuals ended up in the crosshairs of the RIAA. This is set up to fail like the last time. It’s intended to be exploited through proxies and VPN’s. It will just force the pirates to go further underground.


39 posted on 02/26/2013 4:17:20 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (You have entered an invalid birthday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
OK How are they supposedly breaching the contract?

My Agreement for Residential Services and Acceptable Use Policy state:

"prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment, either individually or in combination with one another, to [...] undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose. This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which [...] infringes the intellectual property rights of any person or entity [...] Comcast reserves the right immediately to suspend or terminate your Service account and terminate the Subscriber Agreement if you violate the terms of this Policy or the Subscriber Agreement."

"You will not use or permit another to use the Xfinity Equipment or the Service(s), directly or indirectly, for any unlawful purpose [...] You acknowledge that you are accepting this Agreement on behalf of all persons who use the Xfinity Equipment and/or Services at the Premises and that you shall have sole responsibility for ensuring that all other users understand and comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any applicable Comcast policies."

40 posted on 02/27/2013 7:33:46 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment, either individually or in combination with one another, to [...] undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose."

So if a Comcast customer breaks the law Comcast has the right to break the contract and cease services, correct?

41 posted on 02/27/2013 8:32:04 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Looks that way.
42 posted on 02/27/2013 9:38:01 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Who determines someone is guilty of an unlawful act?

Mind you not I am not talking about accusations I am talking about determining guilt?

43 posted on 02/27/2013 1:32:47 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
For purposes of imposing criminal penalties, the courts - and for purposes of evaluating adherence to a contract, whoever the contract specifies.
44 posted on 02/27/2013 1:44:33 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"and for purposes of evaluating adherence to a contract, whoever the contract specifies."

Ahhh no. The contract states explicitly "Unlawful purpose" referring to "breaking the law" as in laws of the state. Comcast has no jurisdiction to find someone guilty of breaking the law. So for them to break the contract they must first have a finding from a court that states the customer is guilty of breaking the law.

Just like a rental contract I can toss someone from my apartments if they are using it for unlawful purposes BUT I must first have a court finding that the tenant used the property for "unlawful purposes" for the judge to grant me an eviction based on such. If they wanted to break the contract on accusations they would have stated so.

45 posted on 02/27/2013 2:27:16 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Comcast has no jurisdiction to find someone guilty of breaking the law.

Correction: Comcast has no jurisdiction to impose criminal penalties for breaking the law.

So for them to break the contract they must first have a finding from a court that states the customer is guilty of breaking the law.

Highly dubious claim. Can you cite any legal precedent in support?

46 posted on 02/27/2013 2:50:14 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

I know how to secure a router. Just saying that nobody can prove in court it was your PC without physically searching the disk.

A knock on the door for child abuse or terrorist activities, yes. But I think we have a long way to go before they knock and hire drive analysts for every $20 movie.


47 posted on 02/27/2013 5:20:13 PM PST by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"Correction: Comcast has no jurisdiction to impose criminal penalties for breaking the law."

Not a correction, Comcast has no jurisdiction to find someone guilty of breaking the law. This is undeniably true. Only the Judicial System can do such. Comcast can accuse can they cannot do anything more.

Now Comcast can put in their contract a clause specifically saying that downloading copyrighted material without the copyright owners consent is grounds for termination of the contract BUT they have no such clause. Instead they have a clause that states using the equipment for "unlawful purposes" is grounds for termination. And being they have no legal standing to determine if someone is guilty of using their equipment for "unlawful purposes" without getting a warrant to gather forensic evidence of such then they have no legal standing to terminate the contract.

"Highly dubious claim. Can you cite any legal precedent in support?"

Ask any first year law student. But seriously the clause in the contract is self-evident. The phrase is: "unlawful purpose" not accused, not suspected but precisely "unlawful purpose" do you think Comcast paid their lawyers to write a contract to just throw words about? Just recently in our little town a city worker had his employment contract terminated because they have a clause that states if the worker is engages in unlawful activities during the term of his employment contract they can terminate the contract immediately. He was arrested and held in jail without bond. So they ended his contract and told him his services were no longer needed. His case was thrown out of court because the prosecutor didn't have the evidence he claimed he had in the arrest warrant. The city is now ponying up some big bucks because they terminated the employees contract before he was convicted.

48 posted on 02/27/2013 6:24:21 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All


Less Than $100 To Go!!
Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


49 posted on 02/27/2013 6:26:37 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

bump


50 posted on 02/27/2013 6:37:58 PM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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