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

Skip to comments.

Judge rules against Indiana’s right to work law
WXIN Channel 59 ^ | 9/8/2013 | Kent Erdahl Reporter

Posted on 09/10/2013 6:16:57 AM PDT by 1raider1

A Lake County judge has ruled Indiana’s so-called “right to work” law unconstitutional.

During a legal challenge launched by Local 150, Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues.

“The right to work law here is unsafe, unfair and an unnecessary law and now it’s been ruled unconstitutional, so we couldn’t be more pleased,” said Jeff Harris, spokesman for the Indiana AFL/CIO.

“The court in Lake County has said (to the legislature), you’re requiring this statute, you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic for any legislature or any attorney general,” said Stephanie Jane Hahn, an attorney who specializes in employment law.

Read more: http://fox59.com/2013/09/09/judge-rules-against-indianas-right-to-work-law/#ixzz2eUlyFDOW

(Excerpt) Read more at fox59.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: indiana; righttowork
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 09/10/2013 6:16:57 AM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

Judges... again thwarting the will of the people.


2 posted on 09/10/2013 6:19:18 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

I messed up. This was actually reported 9/9/2013.


3 posted on 09/10/2013 6:19:22 AM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

Lake County, I presume, is Gary?


4 posted on 09/10/2013 6:19:28 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

I am against Unions but if you belong to one you should pay the dues. You should not be REQUIRED to join a Union though. Take that out and pass the law again.


5 posted on 09/10/2013 6:20:43 AM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

That does seems stupid...

How could they force the unions to represent people who were NOT dues-paying mambers?

I may be unclear on all the facts.


6 posted on 09/10/2013 6:20:55 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Yes, Gary, Hammond, etc.


7 posted on 09/10/2013 6:21:22 AM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

The right to work is unconstitutional?! What planet are we on?


8 posted on 09/10/2013 6:21:23 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c

I don’t think the judge has the authority to decide that


9 posted on 09/10/2013 6:22:13 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

A county judge throws out a state law?

Is that even possible?


10 posted on 09/10/2013 6:22:45 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

Agreed - what were the legislators thinking? Was this snuck in as a poison pill by the bad guys?


11 posted on 09/10/2013 6:23:15 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic

An unwanted so called "service".

Like the homeless man that rubs a dirty rag on your windshield at a red light and then wants you to pay him for his "service".

12 posted on 09/10/2013 6:23:21 AM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

Typically the issue is the company doesn’t have to act as a dues collector and perform payroll withholding of union dues.

I wonder if that is what is really going on here?


13 posted on 09/10/2013 6:24:42 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

A county judge?..............


14 posted on 09/10/2013 6:25:09 AM PDT by Red Badger (It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. .....Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues.


If this is true, this decision is correct, IMO.


15 posted on 09/10/2013 6:26:55 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

All you need is one greedy idiot and a few dollars.


16 posted on 09/10/2013 6:27:12 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
Its a forced "service". In Michigan we have RTW workers suing because the union is charging them even more than members.

Lawsuit Filed Against Teamsters For Extra Fee Imposed On Right-to-Work Employees
17 posted on 09/10/2013 6:29:06 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I wonder if that is what is really going on here?

Don't tell anyone, but.... IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY. IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

18 posted on 09/10/2013 6:30:00 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Legal experts agree the unions’ victory likely will be short-lived. Joel Schumm, a law pro­fessor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the constitutional clause under question historically has applied to individuals.

The Supreme Court, he said, would need to be convinced to extend that right from individuals to unions.

“Unions are not generally thought of as a ‘person,’ nor are they organizations that existed when the Indiana Constitution was ratified in 1851,” he said.

http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130909/NEWS05/309090068/Indiana-judge-finds-right-work-law-unconstitutional
19 posted on 09/10/2013 6:30:19 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

It is not at all uncommon for employees who have opted out of union membership to be required to pay a small (relatively) fee to pay for the benefits the union still provides; namely, collective bargaining for wages.


20 posted on 09/10/2013 6:37:27 AM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Liars use facts when the truth doesn't suit their purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

It’s the law in Alabama and right to work works fine.


21 posted on 09/10/2013 6:41:29 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (To stay calm during these tumultuous times, I take Damitol. Ask your Doctor if it's right for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

You are correct.


22 posted on 09/10/2013 6:41:59 AM PDT by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: al_c

Pretty soon the “right to posts” that question judges decisions will be banned. Our rights are diminishing (as the people cheer).


23 posted on 09/10/2013 6:46:10 AM PDT by BipolarBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I wonder if that is what is really going on here?

One thing that is seldom discussed here is the fact that larger companies prefer to deal with the union over the individual. A factory with 1000 employees doesn't want a team of HR people constantly dealing with every individual issue that every employee has when they can negotiate with a single union rep.

The reasons are very much the same as companies using temp services. In the long run its cheaper to pay the temp service $15 an hour for a $7.50 per hour employee that can eliminated at a moment's notice without repercussion.
24 posted on 09/10/2013 6:49:09 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues

That makes sense to me, but it will require companies to have different levels of pay. Oh...gosh....they might even be able to pay on merit those who aren't in the union.

If I were those workers I would BEG to not be represented by the union.

25 posted on 09/10/2013 6:56:18 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Yes, and I am NO fan of unions, but I do not believe a law that requires them to represent people who have not paid for said representation is patently unfair. I don’t know about whether it’s constitutional, however.


26 posted on 09/10/2013 6:56:59 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Yes, and I am NO fan of unions, but I do not believe a law that requires them to represent people who have not paid for said representation is patently unfair.

Just so I'm clear; if I'm a teacher and can choose NOT to join the union, are you saying I should be made to pay union dues just because the union is still representing all teachers as a whole when it comes to negotiating wages?

27 posted on 09/10/2013 7:04:53 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Play the 'Knockout Game' with someone owning a 9mm and you get what you deserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

Everything is a right if it is from a liberal, but your real rights, the OBVIOUS ones are NULL when it conflicts with their liberal progressive world view of GOVERNMENT ONLY “rights.”


28 posted on 09/10/2013 7:08:51 AM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Just so I’m clear; if I’m a teacher and can choose NOT to join the union, are you saying I should be made to pay union dues just because the union is still representing all teachers as a whole when it comes to negotiating wages?


No. I’m only talking about individual actions. e.g. if you are accused by the district of fondling girls or anything else, if you are not a dues paying union member, the union should not be required to come to your defense.

On a side note, I don’t think the results of collective bargaining should apply to non-union members either. ‘Course, it would mean that union member teachers would probably get paid more, causing non-union members to consider becoming members, or incentivizing the district to save money by hiring non-union members.


29 posted on 09/10/2013 7:10:49 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I agree that it is unfair if non-members are being represented without paying fees, but my understanding is that the union can negotiate the collection of fees from non-union members to pay for their collective bargaining expenses.


30 posted on 09/10/2013 7:17:41 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

I agree that it is unfair if non-members are being represented without paying fees, but my understanding is that the union can negotiate the collection of fees from non-union members to pay for their collective bargaining expenses.


Well then, never mind. ;-)


31 posted on 09/10/2013 7:26:16 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

I did that a while back. It was the Beck decision. You pay agency fees to cover collective bargaining work.


32 posted on 09/10/2013 7:33:12 AM PDT by liege (America 180)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Well then, never mind. ;-)

But then again, I may be wrong... :0
33 posted on 09/10/2013 7:34:26 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1; Perdogg; BuckeyeTexan

These lawsuits are an important part of America’s realpolitik. We need to discuss, openly and publicly, the concepts found in our Constitution. The voters are simply too ignorant as to the words and meaning of this most important contract.

Do you have the right to free association? Free thought? What about the Commerce Clause? If we revisted that we might find Wickard v. Filburn a beneficial tool. If an individual farmer feeding his self-grown food to his own family can affect interstate commerce, how much more do state, county and local laws limiting or directing commerce affect interstate commerce?

This is worth exploring.


34 posted on 09/10/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

notice the judge did not state no membership required. The judge said you have to pay money.

IOW someone might have paid the judge.


35 posted on 09/10/2013 7:44:48 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

“I messed up. This was actually reported 9/9/2013.”

well congrats on having another thread where Freepers don;t even look at the date and still post LOL


36 posted on 09/10/2013 7:47:40 AM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
A Lake County judge has ruled Indiana’s so-called “right to work” law unconstitutional.

During a legal challenge launched by Local 150, Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues. ...

“The court in Lake County has said (to the legislature), you’re requiring this statute, you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic for any legislature or any attorney general,” said Stephanie Jane Hahn, an attorney who specializes in employment law.

If right-to-work laws are "unconstitutional," as this judge has claimed, there must be a great many states in violation of the US Constitution. Currently, some 24 states--almost half--plus the territory of Guam have right-to-work laws in place. (For the record, those 24 states include my home state of Tennessee.)

37 posted on 09/10/2013 7:55:57 AM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

how much more do state, county and local laws limiting or directing commerce affect interstate commerce?

Surely a rhetorical question regarding one of the most BOZO decisions in legal history IMHO.

This is worth exploring?

This, along with every other unconstitutional “law” foisted upon “the people” by folks in robes, needs to be dumped by a Congress inspired to do their JOB.


38 posted on 09/10/2013 8:00:49 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

The same plaintiff lost his case in federal court. This case was based, in large part, on the claim that a provision of the State Constitution was violated (a claim which required a stretch of the imagination, in my opinion). The judge wasn’t all that confidant in his opinion, however, because he stayed his own decision pending appeal.


39 posted on 09/10/2013 8:01:21 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wita

Nope, I think we embrace it. Turn the fire hose on them for a change. Use that case to beat up every anti-commerce, crony capitalist law across the local, county and state landscape of America.

You put together a top notch legal team focusing only on Commerce Clause. Fund them and let them light the fire. Then once we retake the WH, put them in charge of litigating these one at a time. Smash them and hard.

Once people get a taste of liberty, they’re not likely to just let it go, especially if it costs them money.


40 posted on 09/10/2013 8:07:01 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Yep as well as the Well run fiefdoms of Hammond East Chicago and Whiting. Otherwise know as the peoples republic of lake County, where more dem office holders are indicted per capita the nearby cook county. A brief taste of some of Lake County Hijinks Skip to comments.
Frankie Flees (Democrats and Corruption? Say it Aint so)
NW Indiana Times nwitimes.com
Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 10:17:15 AM by slapshot

EAST CHICAGO | Former City Councilman Frank “Frankie” Kollintzas fled the country and a prison term that he warned in a letter he couldn’t face.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Miller pronounced a sentence of 11 years and four months Thursday to an empty chair at the defense table in his South Bend courtroom after being told the 62-year-old man used either a false passport or a possibly a Greek passport, under the name Fotios Kollintzas, to board a Swissair flight Tuesday afternoon to Zurich, Switzerland.

Kollintzas wrote a letter to the court the day he fled complaining he hadn’t slept well since his arrest in 2003 in the sidewalks-for-votes case and that he didn’t deserve “to go to prison until I die or become an old man.”

The judge issued an arrest warrant for Kollintzas.

U.S. Attorney Joseph Van Bokkelen said, “I will vigorously pursue him.” Kollintzas, however, could find sanctuary in Greece, since that nation doesn’t return American fugitives who receive Greek citizenship, he said.

He said Kollintzas is a native-born American, but his parents immigrated from Greece. Kollintzas’ cousin, Evangelos Kollintzas of Schererville, fled there two years ago to avoid trial on a federal extortion charge.

The judge said Frank Kollintzas’ sentence was a “just punishment” for misappropriating nearly $24 million in public funds five years ago to give free concrete driveways, patios and sidewalks to voters to ensure his re-election and that of the former Mayor Robert Pastrick’s administration in the 1999 primary election.

There was no reaction Thursday to the announcement of Kollintzas’ disappearance from the crowd of his supporters in the courtroom.

A work associate of Kollintzas, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Times Thursday she and another fellow worker last saw Kollintzas Tuesday afternoon. He met with one of his lawyers that day at the city school administration building, where Kollintzas was on the payroll as director of facilities.

Kollintzas apparently left his car in the school parking lot outside an administration building called the warehouse. A member of his family came to drive it away.

His 62nd birthday was Tuesday, and his family had planned a celebration at his home that evening. “But he never showed up,” she said. She said his family told others they didn’t know where he was. “No one has heard anything. This is like a bad dream,” she said.

Van Bokkelen, who was present in court for the sentencing, and Theodore Poulos, lead counsel of Kollintzas’ defense team, both said they suspect Kollintzas fled after the judge sentenced his co-defendants, Edwardo Maldonado, former city controller, and Joe De La Cruz, former fellow city councilman, to eight years and six years in prison, respectively.

Poulos said in his sentencing argument, “I don’t know why he isn’t here, but he continued to insist on his innocence and facing a sentence in such a draconian range... that would put him in prison until age 73 or 75.”

He said Kollintzas would have received the same sentence if he had robbed and wounded a bank teller.

Van Bokkelen said the sentence was fair and a warning to others under investigation to cooperate or face a similar price.

He said, “I think the Maldonado sentence (Friday) did scare him. I think Kollintzas hedged his bets up to the last moment.”

Kollintzas was supposed to have been sentenced Friday along with Maldonado and De La Cruz, but the judge granted Kollintzas a six-day delay because Poulos had to appear in another court Friday.

Van Bokkelen said he doesn’t think that was a ruse. “I think Ted was as shocked as anybody. Ted’s client betrayed him. I take him at his word that he wanted to (be sentenced) first.”

Van Bokkelen said he never considered detaining Kollintzas before sentencing, despite vague rumors he might flee. He said no federal judge was likely to detain someone like Kollintzas who had lived and worked in Northwest Indiana all his life.

The three-hour sentencing — described as surreal by one government source — featured defense lawyers praising Kollintzas’ integrity. “He’s done a world of good,” Poulos said.

The judge ran through the ritual of explaining how he arrived at the sentence, the amount of restitution ($25.5 million) and the right of appeal to an absent defendant.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hollar argued that with Kollintzas “getting on an airplane and leaving the country, there was no more powerful statement he could make” in answer to evidence Kollintzas led and organized the corruption that swept the city.

The judge read out a long list of witnesses who implicated Kollintzas in the sidewalk scheme and said that his escape counterbalanced all the good attributed to his private and public good works over the last four decades.

Miller said 25 people wrote him to praise Kollintzas. “He did not return their support today,” the judge said.



41 posted on 09/10/2013 8:37:37 AM PDT by slapshot ("Were not gonna take it anymore" Twisted Sister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1
During a legal challenge launched by Local 150, Judge John Sedia took issue with the part of the law requiring unions to represent workers while making illegal for them to require membership dues.

So the law says that you are not required to be a part of the Union but the Union is required to represent you? That doesn't sound fair. If you don't want to be part of the Union then you shouldn't have to join. But if the Union negotiates a pay raise for their members then you shouldn't be covered by it.

42 posted on 09/10/2013 8:45:49 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

And there in lies the problem!

If I do not want to be in the union, but a union exists, BY LAW the company will only negotiate with the union for wages and NOT me personally - even though I am NOT in the union.

Basically, the company gets the benefit of less union members (maybe over time enough to dissolve the union) but until then, individuals are SCREWED unless they are FORCED to pay union dues for services that they don’t want!

Kinda seems like Obamacare in some ways - huh?!?!? Just keep paying, sooner or later, you will enjoy some type of benefit in some manner or way. And for that, the Democrats want us to say, “Thank you?”


43 posted on 09/10/2013 8:57:03 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: max americana

Actually, I heard about the story this morning, while listening to the radio. When I googled the article all it said was that it was posted eight hours before I read it, which would have made it around Midnight on the ninth. My mistake was not looking at my calendar and thinking TODAY was the ninth.


44 posted on 09/10/2013 9:02:42 AM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

I leave room for it occasionally being about the caliphate, as I believe is the case for Barry and his administration's MB infiltrators, but then, extremist Islamists will freely give of their money and blood and their children's blood to service that end.

HF

45 posted on 09/10/2013 9:04:56 AM PDT by holden (Alter or abolish it yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

“you’re requiring citizens and organizations in this state to provide services without compensation and that’s got to be problematic for any legislature or any attorney general,””


In that case, CommieCare should be unconstitutional in that state.

In that case, you are requiring citizens to provide all sort of freebies and pensions to union communists without compensation therefore it should be unconstitutional in that state.

Actually, both should be unconstitutional for all states.


46 posted on 09/10/2013 9:56:58 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1raider1

I’m thinking the judge could have easly issued a much smaller in scope injuction. He could have simply ruled against the requirement for the union to represent individuals that were not dues paying members and left the rest of the law in place.

While I can’t recall the legal term, I believe that there is a a principle in jurisprudence that is similar to “do the least harm”. It would seem to me that this judge has seriously violated that principle.


47 posted on 09/10/2013 10:00:54 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The statute doesn’t require that the union represent anyone who is not a member. The statute merely provides that union membership shall be made a condition of employment.


48 posted on 09/10/2013 10:22:12 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky; DoodleDawg
I should have written; The statute merely provides that union membership shall not be made a condition of employment.
49 posted on 09/10/2013 10:45:10 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

who held a gruuuuuuuuuuuuuudge


50 posted on 09/10/2013 5:59:51 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


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