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

Skip to comments.

Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?
lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

Posted on 12/21/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham

 

Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

by Nicholas Monahan

This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me àla a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, "What did you do to her?" Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. "I felt like a clown," my wife told me later. "On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up."

Of course when I say she "told me later," it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a "menace."

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for...for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. "Mr. Monahan," he started, "Are you on drugs?"

Was this even real? "No, I’m not on drugs."

"Should you be?"

"What do you mean?"

"Should you be on any type of medication?"

"No."

"Then why’d you react that way back there?"

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only "whackos" get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! "Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?" His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor... which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his "favor" was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.

"Here’s your court date," he said as I was released from my cell. In addition, I was banned from Portland International for 90 days, and just in case I was thinking of coming over and hanging out around its perimeter, the officer gave me a map with the boundaries highlighted, sternly warning me against trespassing. Then he and a second officer escorted us off the grounds. Mary and I hurriedly drove two and a half hours in the rain to Seattle, where we eventually caught a flight to Vegas. But the officer was true to his word – we missed my friend’s wedding. The fact that he’d been in my own wedding party, the fact that a once in a lifetime event was stolen from us – well, who cares, right?

Upon our return to Portland (I’d had to fly into Seattle and drive back down), we immediately began contacting attorneys. We aren’t litigious people – we wanted no money. I’m not even sure what we fully wanted. An apology? A reprimand? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter though, because we couldn’t afford a lawyer, it turned out. $4,000 was the average figure bandied about as a retaining fee. Sorry, but I’ve got a new baby on the way. So we called the ACLU, figuring they existed for just such incidents as these. And they do apparently...but only if we were minorities. That’s what they told us.

In the meantime, I’d appealed my suspension from PDX. A week or so later I got a response from the Director of Aviation. After telling me how, in the aftermath of 9/11, most passengers not only accept additional airport screening but welcome it, he cut to the chase:

"After a review of the police report and my discussions with police staff, as well as a review of the TSA’s report on this incident, I concur with the officer’s decision to take you into custody and to issue a citation to you for disorderly conduct. That being said, because I also understand that you were upset and acted on your emotions, I am willing to lift the Airport Exclusion Order...."

Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.

The gist of his report was this: From the get go I wasn’t following the screener’s directions. I was "squinting my eyes" and talking to my wife in a "low, forced voice" while "excitedly swinging my arms." Twice I began to walk away from the screener, inhaling and exhaling forcefully. When I’d completed the physical exam, I walked to the luggage screening area, where a second screener took a pair of scissors from my suitcase. At this point I yelled, "What the %*&$% is going on? This is &*#&$%!" The officer, who’d already been called over by one of the screeners, became afraid for the TSA staff and the many travelers. He required the assistance of a second officer as he "struggled" to get me into handcuffs, then for "cover" called over a third as well. It was only at this point that my wife began to cry hysterically.

There was nothing poetic in my reaction to the arrest report. I didn’t crumple it in my fist and swear that justice would be served, promising to sacrifice my resources and time to see that it would. I simply stared. Clearly the officer didn’t have the guts to write down what had really happened. It might not look too good to see that stuff about the pregnant woman in tears because she’d been humiliated. Instead this was the official scenario being presented for the permanent record. It doesn’t even matter that it’s the most implausible sounding situation you can think of. "Hey, what the...godammit, they’re taking our scissors, honey!" Why didn’t he write in anything about a monkey wearing a fez?

True, the TSA staff had expropriated a pair of scissors from our toiletries kit – the story wasn’t entirely made up. Except that I’d been locked in airport jail at the time. I didn’t know anything about any scissors until Mary told me on our drive up to Seattle. They’d questioned her about them while I was in the bowels of the airport sitting in my cell.

So I wrote back, indignation and disgust flooding my brain.

"[W]hile I’m not sure, I’d guess that the entire incident is captured on video. Memory is imperfect on everyone’s part, but the footage won’t lie. I realize it might be procedurally difficult for you to view this, but if you could, I’d appreciate it. There’s no willful disregard of screening directions. No explosion over the discovery of a pair of scissors in a suitcase. No struggle to put handcuffs on. There’s a tired man, early in the morning, unhappily going through a rigorous procedure and then reacting to the tears of his pregnant wife."

Eventually we heard back from a different person, the guy in charge of the TSA airport screeners. One of his employees had made the damning statement about me exploding over her scissor discovery, and the officer had deftly incorporated that statement into his report. We asked the guy if he could find out why she’d said this – couldn’t she possibly be mistaken? "Oh, can’t do that, my hands are tied. It’s kind of like leading a witness – I could get in trouble, heh heh." Then what about the videotape? Why not watch that? That would exonerate me. "Oh, we destroy all video after three days."

Sure you do.

A few days later we heard from him again. He just wanted to inform us that he’d received corroboration of the officer’s report from the officer’s superior, a name we didn’t recognize. "But...he wasn’t even there," my wife said.

"Yeah, well, uh, he’s corroborated it though."

That’s how it works.

"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."

But I thought it was destroyed?

On and on it went. Due to the tenacity of my wife in making phone calls and speaking with relevant persons, the "crime" was eventually lowered to a mere citation. Only she could have done that. I would’ve simply accepted what was being thrown at me, trumped up charges and all, simply because I’m wholly inadequate at performing the kowtow. There’s no way I could have contacted all the people Mary did and somehow pretend to be contrite. Besides, I speak in a low, forced voice, which doesn’t elicit sympathy. Just police suspicion.

Weeks later at the courthouse I listened to a young DA awkwardly read the charges against me – "Mr. Monahan...umm...shouted obscenities at the airport staff...umm... umm...oh, they took some scissors from his suitcase and he became...umm...abusive at this point." If I was reading about it in Kafka I might have found something vaguely amusing in all of it. But I wasn’t. I was there. Living it.

I entered a plea of nolo contendere, explaining to the judge that if I’d been a resident of Oregon, I would have definitely pled "Not Guilty." However, when that happens, your case automatically goes to a jury trial, and since I lived a thousand miles away, and was slated to return home in seven days, with a newborn due in a matter of weeks...you get the picture. "No Contest" it was. Judgment: $250 fine.

Did I feel happy? Only $250, right? No, I wasn’t happy. I don’t care if it’s twelve cents, that’s money pulled right out of my baby’s mouth and fed to a disgusting legal system that will use it to propagate more incidents like this. But at the very least it was over, right? Wrong.

When we returned to Los Angeles there was an envelope waiting for me from the court. Inside wasn’t a receipt for the money we’d paid. No, it was a letter telling me that what I actually owed was $309 – state assessed court costs, you know. Wouldn’t you think your taxes pay for that – the state putting you on trial? No, taxes are used to hire more cops like the officer, because with our rising criminal population – people like me – hey, your average citizen demands more and more "security."

Finally I reach the piece de resistance. The week before we’d gone to the airport my wife had had her regular pre-natal checkup. The child had settled into the proper head down position for birth, continuing the remarkable pregnancy she’d been having. We returned to Portland on Sunday. On Mary’s Monday appointment she was suddenly told, "Looks like your baby’s gone breech." When she later spoke with her midwives in Los Angeles, they wanted to know if she’d experienced any type of trauma recently, as this often makes a child flip. "As a matter of fact..." she began, recounting the story, explaining how the child inside of her was going absolutely crazy when she was crying as the police were leading me away through the crowd.

My wife had been planning a natural childbirth. She’d read dozens of books, meticulously researched everything, and had finally decided that this was the way for her. No drugs, no numbing of sensations – just that ultimate combination of brute pain and sheer joy that belongs exclusively to mothers. But my wife is also a first-time mother, so she has what is called an "untested" pelvis. Essentially this means that a breech birth is too dangerous to attempt, for both mother and child. Therefore, she’s now relegated to a c-section – hospital stay, epidural, catheter, fetal monitoring, stitches – everything she didn’t want. Her natural birth has become a surgery.

We’ve tried everything to turn that baby. Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, underwater handstands, elephant walking, moxibustion, bending backwards over pillows, herbs, external manipulation – all to no avail. When I walked into the living room the other night and saw her plaintively cooing with a flashlight turned onto her stomach, yet another suggested technique, my heart almost broke. It’s breaking now as I write these words.

I can never prove that my child went breech because of what happened to us at the airport. But I’ll always believe it. Wrongly or rightly, I’ll forever think of how this man, the personification of this system, has affected the lives of my family and me. When my wife is sliced open, I’ll be thinking of him. When they remove her uterus from her abdomen and lay it on her stomach, I’ll be thinking of him. When I visit her and my child in the hospital instead of having them with me here in our home, I’ll be thinking of him. When I assist her to the bathroom while the incision heals internally, I’ll be thinking of him.

There are plenty of stories like this these days. I don’t know how many I’ve read where the writer describes some breach of civil liberties by employees of the state, then wraps it all up with a dire warning about what we as a nation are becoming, and how if we don’t put an end to it now, then we’re in for heaps of trouble. Well you know what? Nothing’s going to stop the inevitable. There’s no policy change that’s going to save us. There’s no election that’s going to put a halt to the onslaught of tyranny. It’s here already – this country has changed for the worse and will continue to change for the worse. There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.

And that’s the first thing that child of ours is going to learn.

December 21, 2002

Nick Monahan works in the film industry. He writes out of Los Angeles where he lives with his wife and as of December 18th, his beautiful new son.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

     

 

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,147 next last
To: general_re
So I gather, upon rereading your post. I haven't read through the MD cases and statutes regarding such things, but based on your description and the Sitz decision, it seems to me that the MD scheme is a bit more...opaque than what SCOTUS set out in Sitz. Since we're presumably talking about a federal standard, I think we can probably expect something more in line with the Sitz decision than what the MD courts have produced ;)

Sitz is pretty open-ended - which is why I don't like it. Countenancing a "checkpoint" for enforcement purposes smacks of "other regimes" to quote the dissent. IMO there is a difference between a border checkpoint (the case the majority relies on to allow these checkpoints) and a DWI checkpoint hundreds of miles from the border. There has to be some probable cause for a warrantless seizure - and the Sitz case eliminates that consideration. I really hate to take issue with Rhenquist and Scalia...but in this case I must.

MD requires that the stop be for informational purposes only, and that the motorist, absent some issue with their driving, be allowed to pass if they don't wind down their window. (Along with other criteria such as ample distance for drivers to legally turn around to avoid the roadblock.)

1,101 posted on 12/24/2002 5:24:50 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1060 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
"Actually this is not correct. Those "checkpoints" are officially called something along the lines of "informational stops" and are NOT (according to the State) designed to catch drunk drivers - stopping drivers without a reason other than to check if they have alcohol on their breath was ruled unconstitutional - so their purpose (the informational roadblock) is to allow the police to pass out literature to inform the driving public the dangers of drunk driving. If they happen to notice a driver who smells of alcohol then they can investigate further."

Is this true for all states?
If so, I can't wait to go through the next checkpoint...
How would I find the provision in the law which says I don't have to roll down my window? I live n VA.

Thanks in advance.
1,102 posted on 12/24/2002 5:54:19 AM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: VMI70
I think it only applies to Maryland.
1,103 posted on 12/24/2002 8:04:57 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1102 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
That's the way I read it also, so the reference to the stops being "unconstutional" refers to the MD constitution. It's nice to have a precedent, but it seems out of character for that state.
1,104 posted on 12/24/2002 8:52:14 AM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; VMI70
Poohbah is correct (I think) - MD is more restrictive than the Sitz opinion. I haven't checked into surrounding states as I don't plan on needing to know. I don't know how VA has structured their's - you would do well to check with an attorney that specializes in DWI cases before you encounter your next roadblock...
1,105 posted on 12/24/2002 9:36:14 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Provide PROOF that he's wrong. The Founders say he's 100% correct. YOU are wrong.
1,106 posted on 12/24/2002 9:40:46 AM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
hah, I thought I was travelling metal free, but then I discovered upon going through the metal detectors that I shoes had steel shanks.
1,107 posted on 12/24/2002 9:56:43 AM PST by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Rights are indeed absolute and unencumbered when it comes to government. It is only and solely when we deal with other individuals and THEIR rights that we have "restrictions" on how we exercise our absolute rights so as to respect the equal rights of others. THIS is what you are trying so hard to dodge. You want us to think that our rights come from gooberment and that gooberment can restrict them as it pleases. You are so wrong on all counts that I can't believe your mother doesn't slap you just for breathing her air. I would if you were my kid and had such moronic ideas. I would disown you and make you change your name so that no one would know we were related. Then I would sue you for repayment of all the money I spent raising you, because it was obviously a waste. Either the gooberment propaganda camps worked too well or you have that authoritarian bent; whichever it is, you are probably the shame of your parents.
1,108 posted on 12/24/2002 9:58:11 AM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
We are in a war. Wars demand unusual measures, and I think the Constitution permits this. The big test is when the war is over. Will the extra-ordinary wartime measures be eliminated? Knowing how government operates, I'm skeptical, but I'll keep an open mind.
1,109 posted on 12/24/2002 10:09:18 AM PST by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: general_re
It matters to me, but that's almost irrelevant.

I asked you if it matters to you, so therefore it's relevant for me. You keep throwing in this - I'd have to call it a phobia at this point - about "imposing" solutions on the American people, when I haven't suggested any such thing. What I'm trying to get from you is what you think our goals should be. Once we've determined that, then we can worry about how to get there.

So you've acknowledged that it matters to you whether government violates the Constitution. Would you say it's doing so now when it says that exercise of what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom shall be conditional upon "consensual" searches?

1,110 posted on 12/24/2002 11:41:07 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Since federal jurisdiction so far fails to extend to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, where Reid boarded his flight, I think this point is not quite as strong as you might think at first blush ;)

D'OH!! ...but on the other hand, federal forces also wouldn't have been checking him for weapons, or much of anything else, for that matter. So that kinda makes Reid a bad example either for or against my argument.

Pan Am 103 was brought down by a slightly modified clock-radio - unless attention is paid to preventing weapons on board airplanes, profiling alone is too coarse a sieve to be effective.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. When I said I'd go easier on "weapons", I meant firearms. Or at least BB guns or something, so we don't blow out a window.

It's easy to romanticize that kind of thing from a distance, but whether you're right or wrong about the efficacy of armed passengers, I really doubt that there is a realistic chance of persuading people that it's a good idea.

Then I guess I won't get customers to fly on Air Inquest with that approach. Such are the ways of the free market. My pilots would still be armed, for what it's worth. Maybe the stewardesses, too. So don't be complaining about the food my plane, buster.

1,111 posted on 12/24/2002 12:01:21 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1091 | View Replies]

To: inquest
That should be "food on my plane".
1,112 posted on 12/24/2002 12:05:58 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I'd settle for a flintlock pistol with a rock salt projectile...wont' harm the plane or kill, but the recipient would sure wish he was dead!

Imagine if the each of the heroes of Flight 93 had one of my special equalizers when Todd Beamer let out his battle cry "Let's Roll"!

I have a feeling that Todd would have been able to join his wife on all of those TV interviews...

Too bad Americans have lost the patriotic spirit of the Founding Fathers and are satisfied with being herded around like sheep to the slaughter.
1,113 posted on 12/24/2002 1:07:32 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Before some pansy bemoans how an innocent passenger might be harmed by a rock salt projectile...let be clear that I was referring to a non-fragmenting projectile in the hands of a responsible American who is trained in the use of firearms from childhood.

As it was in this country until the statist stole our national heritage from patriotic Americans and redefined government agents as the only people who can be trusted with firearms in a hostile situation...
1,114 posted on 12/24/2002 1:17:26 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
"As for the wife in question being touched...that should have been done behind a screen...most definitely. "

You have got to be kidding. Why should she have been searched to begin with? I see the people they decide to search...grandmothers, children, women with large breasts. The only people who are not searched are those who actually look like terrorists. Our security is pathetic and dangerous.

1,115 posted on 12/24/2002 1:36:27 PM PST by Feiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
I actually envision some sort of "air militia", whereby volunteers who fly regularly could train, say one weekend a month, not only in the proper use of firearms on board a plane, but also on how to spot suspicious characters and to respond appropriately and effectively in various types of situations. Such volunteers could then receive discounts on their tickets.

Or, I guess we can just keep feeling up pregnant women's knockers.

1,116 posted on 12/24/2002 7:31:18 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I vote for option B, Bob. I LIKE copping feels of other men's wives.

Though I have to admit more than a modicum of sense to option A.
1,117 posted on 12/24/2002 11:23:19 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Method "A" sounds like a good common sense approach to the situation, but would there be any fat in the equation for good ol' Uncle Sam to siphon off some funds?

Would the legislature and judiciary have anything to argue over to advance their careers and pocketbooks?

I have a feeling Method "B" would be more to likely to advance the careers and salaries of those poor underprivileged masses of Federal employees and politicians, who really have the best interests of Amerika at heart...
1,118 posted on 12/25/2002 1:46:49 AM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon
ping
1,119 posted on 12/25/2002 2:41:32 AM PST by oceanperch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
I agree. Note yesterday's story about a man on board an airliner in Madison, Wisc. who reportedly told the pilot "I hope you aren't drinking." He was fined $225, and the case has been referred to the FBI for possible felony charges. It's a different country than I grew up in.
1,120 posted on 12/25/2002 5:40:24 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,147 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