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

Skip to comments.

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City (Donations welcome, the ACLU will get most of it)
MichaelRighi.com ^ | September 2nd, 2007 | Michael Righi,

Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat

Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father’s side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.

For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father’s Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It’s my little sister’s birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)

Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney’s “Cars” game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”

As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsite.michaelrighi.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abuse; privacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 551-555 next last
To: pierstroll
They have a store policy that you show the receipt.

Having a store policy doesn't make it legal. The store policy could be a cavity search on your way out (after all, you can hide that flash drive anywhere, you little thief!). Would that be any more legal?

Are you saying they have no right to have that policy or to enforce it?

If it's an illegal policy, then yes, they have no right to enforce it.
301 posted on 09/04/2007 8:36:31 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

Not likely. They will produce deputies who will swear you were violently resisting and of course the dashcam on their vehicle was broken. Oh yeah, say goodbye to your watch and any cash you have on you.


302 posted on 09/04/2007 8:37:33 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (How hot does it have to get for a burning concrete lion to experience spalling? Anybody know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
The problem is that no one knows it was a legal purchase except the guy who's engaging in the suspicious behavior.

So the store should say, go ahead with our products because we haven't had time to run the tapes back for your entire visit to the store.

Any competent Loss Prevention Specialist knows that probable cause is required to stop and detain some one and that refusing a post sales receipt check is not probable cause. To legitimately stop someone they need to observe the crime and the perp until they leave the store. If they don’t, they will not grab the person, since they know the legal ramifications if they are wrong. The problem is that few loss prevention types are pros.

The CC guys went well outside the law and will get hammered for it.

303 posted on 09/04/2007 8:37:58 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

Stores have no right to state ALL their customers are shoplifters. They must have a reasonable suspicion that a theft occurred to detain someone. They otherwise have no right to search.

This guy’s demeanor or motivation does not enter into whether or not he stole, which, he indeed, did not. They never stated they believed he stole anything...they only stated he refused to let them search him/his belongings...and they had no reason for doing so.


304 posted on 09/04/2007 8:38:17 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

“Being a jerk is not a crime....”

er.... thats what I said.


305 posted on 09/04/2007 8:38:31 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
probable cause is required to stop and detain some one and that refusing a post sales receipt check is not probable cause.

I don't understand why people on this site are having such difficulty with this. The man was well within his rights to refuse the receipt check, and the CC manager was an idiot who is going to get a nice re-education session from either HR or a Loss Prevention manager.
306 posted on 09/04/2007 8:41:10 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Now the business must have a loading dock and run the product directly into the car? What else do they have to do so you don't have to open a bag at the door and feel violated. You have crossed the line at being ridiculous.

You can be stopped for pants if the receipt shows you didn't buy the pair you're wearing and there's an old pair in the bag or for the second pair you're wearing. All because the receipt was checked at the door.

307 posted on 09/04/2007 8:41:16 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: monday

Then you shouldn’t be defending the cop, either, who also was in the wrong here.

The store illegally detained the customer.

Look, for all I know, this guy’s motivation is to fund raise for the ACLU, an organization I despise. But, the point remains, we should not so willingly go along with searches when there is no reason for them. Legally purchasing a product does not give rise to thereafter being allowed to be subject to searches or being detained. It’s preposterous, actually.


308 posted on 09/04/2007 8:42:28 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
“No, I’m in favor of keeping my rights. It’s not my fault the store can’t come up with a better security policy to control shoplifting, is it?”

Does congress have to give store owners the ‘right’ to search every patron as soon as they step foot on store premises? Why would that make you happy? Unless you shop lift regularly, why does it bother you if you are asked for a receipt at the exit?

309 posted on 09/04/2007 8:43:32 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: monday; Quick1
Unless you shop lift regularly, why does it bother you if you are asked for a receipt at the exit?

That's the whole point. Why should I be under threat of arrest unless I comply with searches?

310 posted on 09/04/2007 8:45:26 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Stores do not declare all their customers shoplifters. Where did you get that from. Shoplifting is a billion dollar problem. Some stores check product leaving the store to see if it matches the receipt. The people who do these systems say it prevents a lot of theft. Now what is illegal about that? I guess the major chains that do that are all doing something illegals for decades.

If you don't follow the policy of the store regarding product check, I believe that to be reasonable cause. If you just want to exercise your libertarianism, you should shop at non-totalitarian stores where they don't give a damn if you steal and raise prices.

Store employees have the right to detain and make citizens arrests. I know some one who has done it dozens of time and successfully testified about it in court.

311 posted on 09/04/2007 8:45:39 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: monday
So I guess you are in favor of making it easier for shop lifters to steal? Interesting. There are only two reasons I can think of that would lead you to this conclusion. I imagine you are aware of both of them so I won’t go into them.

Actually there is a well defined and prescribed way to detain shoplifters for probable cause, but it does not involve post sales receipt checks.

Your position seems to be since I have nothing to hide, I should not object to being searched by a private party though I have done nothing.

312 posted on 09/04/2007 8:45:48 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

I just posted the Ohio law.

Merchants cannot legally detain anyone unless they have a reasonable suspicion someone stole.

Merchants cannot legally search anyone.

This store illegally detained the guy AND they demanded to search him.


313 posted on 09/04/2007 8:47:14 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
Now the business must have a loading dock and run the product directly into the car? What else do they have to do so you don't have to open a bag at the door and feel violated.

I was merely giving a suggestion, I'm not a Loss Prevention specialist. Also, what business that sells big ticket items like TVs doesn't have a loading dock?

You can be stopped for pants if the receipt shows you didn't buy the pair you're wearing and there's an old pair in the bag or for the second pair you're wearing.

So if I walk into JC Penney with a brand new pair of Arizona jeans, and then head towards the exit without purchasing anything, you're saying that I could be stopped and asked for my receipt, and when I refuse (because I don't have the receipt anymore), I could be arrested for shoplifting? You are completely and utterly wrong.
314 posted on 09/04/2007 8:47:34 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
Stores do not declare all their customers shoplifters. Where did you get that from.

They take the default position that everyone is stealing but demanding that everyone prove they didn't steal when they leave the store, but subjecting them to searches.

315 posted on 09/04/2007 8:48:36 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
when they leave the store , but BY subjecting them to
316 posted on 09/04/2007 8:49:29 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
Let's bet on that.

The store has the right to enforce the policy and get their product back if you refuse. It is a basic method of property protection.

As for arrest, they are subject to the rules of citizen arrests not the laws controlling police department.

When the cops respond, they will follow their guidelines if they take the person into custody.

It's heroic to some of you what this guy did, but it's contrary to the property rights of the big bad store.

317 posted on 09/04/2007 8:49:31 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
“Then you shouldn’t be defending the cop, either, who also was in the wrong here.”

Usually I am against cops who abuse their authority. I am a libertarian. check my page. In this case however, the guy was being such a jerk, for no reason other than to annoy and waste everyones time. I sympathize with the cop and the store this time.

318 posted on 09/04/2007 8:49:51 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: monday
Does congress have to give store owners the ‘right’ to search every patron as soon as they step foot on store premises? Why would that make you happy?

So you're saying that you would be fine giving up your right to not be searched without cause?

Unless you shop lift regularly, why does it bother you if you are asked for a receipt at the exit?

I suppose if I refuse to allow a police officer to search my car without cause, it must be because I have a bong in the backseat, right?
319 posted on 09/04/2007 8:50:08 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
Some stores check product leaving the store to see if it matches the receipt. The people who do these systems say it prevents a lot of theft. Now what is illegal about that?

Absolutely nothing is illegal about that. I don't debate that it's absolutely legal for stores to ask to check my receipt. However, I'm also trying to tell you that it is also legal for me to refuse such a search.
320 posted on 09/04/2007 8:51:38 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
If you don't follow the policy of the store...

Store policies MUST be in line with their state laws. Ohio law does not allow any merchant to detain customers without reasonable suspicion that someone stole; a reasonable suspicion would likely include observing someone taking something for which they did not pay, such as observing them putting it in a purse, under their jacket, or something similar.

321 posted on 09/04/2007 8:51:40 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
Stores do not declare all their customers shoplifters. Where did you get that from. Shoplifting is a billion dollar problem. Some stores check product leaving the store to see if it matches the receipt. The people who do these systems say it prevents a lot of theft. Now what is illegal about that? I guess the major chains that do that are all doing something illegals for decades.

Its only illegal if they force the search or detain you based on your refusal to allow a search. No matter what “they” say, the stats are that most theft is from employees.

If you don’t follow the policy of the store regarding product check, I believe that to be reasonable cause. If you just want to exercise your libertarianism, you should shop at non-totalitarian stores where they don’t give a damn if you steal and raise prices.

Your belief is incorrect. Refusing a voluntary search is not probable cause for the cops or a merchant

Most likely it is not a citizens arrest but the invoking of shopkeepers privilege. Only a fool uses citizens arrest. Also they are most likely a trained Loss Prevention specialist, who would know better that to use refusal to search as the pretext for detention.

322 posted on 09/04/2007 8:51:56 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: monday

The guy called the cop because HE was being illegally detained. The cop demanded information that he was not legally allowed to ask. Ohio law states that the cop could only ask for name, address, and date of birth. The guy did not refuse to supply that information. The cop was wrong.


323 posted on 09/04/2007 8:53:13 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
The store has the right to enforce the policy and get their product back if you refuse. It is a basic method of property protection.

They are perfectly well within their rights to ask to check my receipt, and I am perfectly well within my right to refuse that search. Why is this so difficult to understand?
324 posted on 09/04/2007 8:53:55 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
“That’s the whole point. Why should I be under threat of arrest unless I comply with searches?”

because it’s the policy of the store in order to limit shop lifting. What makes you so special that you should get preferential treatment? Showing a receipt isn’t like they are strip searching you. Do you shop lift? If not, whats the big deal?

325 posted on 09/04/2007 8:54:18 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

I agree with you, (read my previous posts), I was repeating back someone else’s quotes starting with 98, they asked what I was disagreeing with.


326 posted on 09/04/2007 8:54:34 AM PDT by ansel12 (First, cut off them off from jobs, benefits and other fruits of our society, Feed attrition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Default position? I missed that day in law school. They take the position that it is better for them and you from a business standpoint. It is impossible from a business standpoint to tracv the movements of all customers through the store. That is why they are using the front door as a screening point. Plus the front door follows legal guidelines that it’s not shoplifting until they leave the store.


327 posted on 09/04/2007 8:55:05 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: monday
In this case however, the guy was being such a jerk, for no reason other than to annoy and waste everyones time.

How was he being a jerk? All he did was say "No, thanks" to a receipt check. Everything that happened after that is the fault of an overzealous manager.
328 posted on 09/04/2007 8:55:14 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: monday

Any policy of any store must be in compliance with state law.

Any policy therefore that is not is ILLEGAL.


329 posted on 09/04/2007 8:55:22 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
I don’t understand why people on this site are having such difficulty with this. The man was well within his rights to refuse the receipt check, and the CC manager was an idiot who is going to get a nice re-education session from either HR or a Loss Prevention manager.

Don’t know either, its a basic freedoms issue.

The CC bubbas are going to be fired and the chain will ask the vic not to sue under the circumstances. If they cover his legal costs, he should agree.

330 posted on 09/04/2007 8:55:31 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

I already posted to you Ohio law. It appears that they violated at least two of them.

I don’t doubt the judge will throw out the charges and may even rule in favor of any counter-filing made by this guy.

The store thinks it’s “special” when it believes its policies supercedes Ohio law.


331 posted on 09/04/2007 8:57:20 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: monday
Showing a receipt isn’t like they are strip searching you.

Then you are free to allow them to search you. I'm interested in what you say when the bag search turns into a strip search, however. "Well, at least it's not a cavity search!"

I'm not sure I'm on the right website. Is this the site where we talk about protecting our liberties and rights?
332 posted on 09/04/2007 8:57:37 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
You're leaving off half of your responsibility. If you refuse to follow the store policy, you should leave the product for a refund. You are violating the contract between you and the store.

What good is a loss prevention policy that lets someone walk away with out having the bagged checked. It defeats the purpose of the policy and will certainly increase loss. In short it violates the right of the store to protect its property rom theft.

333 posted on 09/04/2007 8:58:08 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Theo

It is public enough that no store person is going to search me.


334 posted on 09/04/2007 8:58:19 AM PDT by ansel12 (First, cut off them off from jobs, benefits and other fruits of our society, Feed attrition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

>>>>Cite the Ohio law that states any citizen must produce identification

It’s called a “Terry stop.” See Terry v. Ohio, Mitchel v. Ohio, Williams v. Illinois, et.al


335 posted on 09/04/2007 8:58:28 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
You are violating the contract between you and the store.

No. The contract was completed at the point of sale. If they wanted to check my bags, they should have done it before the sale (and thus the contract) was completed.
336 posted on 09/04/2007 8:59:38 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.


337 posted on 09/04/2007 8:59:50 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
The store is protecting its property and I don't follow your interpretation of Ohio law. But hey not all laws make sense.
338 posted on 09/04/2007 8:59:58 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
“Your position seems to be since I have nothing to hide, I should not object to being searched by a private party though I have done nothing.”

This is exactly my position. If people like this guy and others on this thread keep making a big deal out of receipt checks, laws might actually be passed that make it within the right of any shopkeeper to arrest and strip search patrons upon probable cause. Is that what you want?

339 posted on 09/04/2007 9:00:29 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

I know, I only included you because it was your post that I was directing the other guy to. It is just a little thing that is generally done.


340 posted on 09/04/2007 9:00:30 AM PDT by ansel12 (First, cut off them off from jobs, benefits and other fruits of our society, Feed attrition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf; Quick1

>>>>Actually I can since signage does not a contract make for a number of good reasons (vision impaired, foreign language, illiterate, is the sign clearly visible at all entrances, was it visible at the time...).

>>>>The store can not legally force me to submit to a search of my person or property unless they have probable cause under shopkeepers privilege. Refusing search is not probalbe cause for a store or an LEO. The only real option they have is to declare the person refusing PNG (not allow me in there again).

WRONG. Where you are getting this legal reasoning is beyond me, but it is very wrong.


341 posted on 09/04/2007 9:00:55 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Terry v. Ohio

FN1. Ohio Rev.Code s 2923.01 (1953) provides in part that '(n)o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person.' An exception is made for properly authorized law enforcement officers.

FN1. Ohio Rev.Code s 2923.01 (1953) provides in part that '(n)o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person.' An exception is made for properly authorized law enforcement officers.

It doesn't appear that the above is related to what is involved in this matter whatsoever.

342 posted on 09/04/2007 9:02:33 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: monday

So because we make a fuss about giving up a little bit of rights, Congress is going to act and take away a LOT of our rights?

Now I know I must have taken a wrong turn at DU.


343 posted on 09/04/2007 9:02:53 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
The contract is completed when you leave the property. If there is a sign at the door or on the back of the receipt that says when the ontract is completed.

You don't check bags before a sale. They are filtered at the check out stand. The question is what can happen after that. Also, some can have a store bag and walk out without going through the check out stand.

Shoplifitng is effected by you leaving the store without paying. What does that have to do with anything that happens earlier?Are you really this naive or are you just looking to waste time?

344 posted on 09/04/2007 9:03:00 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
“All he did was say “No, thanks” to a receipt check.”

All he had to do was show his receipt. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother. Do you believe shoplifters should be allowed to say “no thanks” and shoplift with impunity?

345 posted on 09/04/2007 9:04:10 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

I’m leaving with my last comment. I suggest you go to a store where everything is free and they just don’t give a damn!


346 posted on 09/04/2007 9:04:40 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

It can protect its property all it wants, as long as it follows the state law. I don’t see it did.


347 posted on 09/04/2007 9:04:46 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
The contract is completed when you leave the property.

Bzzt, wrong. Try again.
348 posted on 09/04/2007 9:04:47 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

Ah, the good old “just submit, you have nothing to hide!” excuse. Hopefully you go back to DU after that post. You’ll find them much more accepting of that attitude.


349 posted on 09/04/2007 9:06:03 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
I don’t suggest trying that with the deputy if you’re stopped. You’ll probably be Tazered, or beaten senseless, or both. Not sure what post of mine you are referring to...

If its about refusing a voluntary search by an LEO...I have always done it and only once did a cop force the issue. 6 months later he was not a cop in that department anymore, my complaint was far from his first, and there were lots of witnesses.

Probable cause is basic requirement for any forced search, with or without a warrant. Refusing voluntary searches is well within your rights. Most cops will push after the first ‘no” and will back off once they realize you are well informed as to your rights. Tarrying with you takes them off the streets and they know that in the long run that is not the right thing to do.

350 posted on 09/04/2007 9:06:31 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 551-555 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