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

Skip to comments.

Levin: SCOTUS immigration decision clears way to sue sanctuary cities, states with in-state tuition
Daily Caller ^ | June 26, 2012 | Jeff Poor

Posted on 06/27/2012 4:25:18 AM PDT by kevcol

“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal activity.”

However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find themselves in hot water.

“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; marklevin; openborders; sanctuarycities; scotusarizona
On a related note, Tom Tancredo's foundation will sue Metro State over immigrant tuition.
1 posted on 06/27/2012 4:25:30 AM PDT by kevcol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kevcol

A brilliant example of unintended cnsequences.


2 posted on 06/27/2012 4:37:48 AM PDT by Sivad (NorCal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Can’t Congress make new federal immigration laws that would help our border states???


3 posted on 06/27/2012 4:43:25 AM PDT by finnsheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sivad

Not unintended, but correct..

The court got this one 100% correct..

Arizona overreached by trying to set it’s own immigration policies, which is a power granted to the federal government...

The fed overreached by trying to micromanage how local and state law enforcement carry out their duties....

Sanctuary cities have always been illegal, as is paying ANYTHING to an illegal..

The states should sue the feds to recover any and all costs associated with their refusal to enforce the laws of the land..

This battle rests firmly with the individual states attorney generals....

If the heat needs to be turned up, that is where to put the fire...


4 posted on 06/27/2012 4:45:06 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Off the health care topic, but along the same lines on how one could use the law to backfire on the Democrats:

Lord Monckton explains how someone could have standing regarding Obama’s eligibility if Obama has signed something as President and that law is being used to prosecute that person. That person would have standing to show that Obama is not eligible to be President; and, therefore, shouldn’t have been signing any laws.

Lord Monckton on Obama’s Birth Certificate - May 30, 2012 - PART 4/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z97vHpwxtYk


5 posted on 06/27/2012 4:51:09 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sivad

My favorite kind when they happen to supposedly intelligent people.


6 posted on 06/27/2012 4:59:55 AM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kevcol; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; LMAO; ...

Good point by Levin.

Except it’s the Federal government that would have to sue, and I don’t see a Republican POTUS DOJ having the guts to do it; and obviously Obama won’t.


7 posted on 06/27/2012 5:10:23 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
So if I understand this correctly...

then this would also undo 0bama’s recent executive order regarding 16-30 year olds?

Or at least make that EO highly changeable and give millions of American citizens standing and businesses as well?

8 posted on 06/27/2012 5:11:18 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;"


9 posted on 06/27/2012 5:17:49 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnsheep
Can’t Congress make new federal immigration laws that would help our border states???

Enforcing our current immigration laws would help our border states! The last time our immigration laws were enforced was way back under Eisenhower and then Truman to free up jobs for returning veterans.
10 posted on 06/27/2012 5:42:17 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Excellent!


11 posted on 06/27/2012 5:58:56 AM PDT by RJL (There's no greed like the greed of a liberal politician buying votes with your money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; All

You might be interested in Scalias dissention:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/372493/scalia-statement.pdf

and interesting analysis of the decision:
http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/blog/124-arizona-immigration-rulingdirect-assault-on-state-sovereignty

““ The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.”” Scalia


12 posted on 06/27/2012 5:59:47 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevcol; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregH; ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

13 posted on 06/27/2012 6:07:39 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sivad

I am expecting down the line another civil war over states rights.


14 posted on 06/27/2012 6:22:25 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; kevcol

8 USC § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
(C) It is not a violation of clauses  [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.
(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs—
(A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or
(B) in the case of—
(i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,
(ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,
be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.
(3)
(A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who—
(i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title), and
(ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.
(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if—
(A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;
(B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and
(C)
(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or
(ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.
(b) Seizure and forfeiture
(1) In general
Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.
(2) Applicable procedures
Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.
(3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of violations
In determining whether a violation of subsection (a) of this section has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:
(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that alien’s status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(C) Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that alien’s status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
(d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony
Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) of this section who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(e) Outreach program
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.


[1]  So in original. Probably should be “clause”.
----------------

As one of his first acts upon assuming office, Romney should prosecute those city officials who voted for sanctuary status, or who ordered their police to conceal illegals from INS.

15 posted on 06/27/2012 6:40:51 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

bupkis, not butkus. Butkus is in football. Bupkis is Yiddish for “nothing”.


16 posted on 06/27/2012 6:55:14 AM PDT by Piranha (If you seek perfection you will end up with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Senor calderon dont send us any more of your huddled masses we’re full up tyvm.....they bring drugs n guns n mayhem, felipe, and they are breaking the bank with their welfaristic saftey netistic demands.....they want free free free n we can’t afford that anymore .....the saftey net is tooo expensive expensive expensive..........so no more gumballs no mas.....

read it and weep,....watch this clip....roy beck and his gumballs explain it all WATCH AND LEARN smartin yourself up....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&feature=player_detailpage#t=0s


17 posted on 06/27/2012 6:56:24 AM PDT by jimsin (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
Anyone not listening to Levin on a regular basis is depriving themselves of the most content rich talk show available today.

It's not often you can hear a guy who is funny, passionate, intellectual, ultimate fighter fan, articulate, obsessed with the constitution, still says goodnight to his deceased dogs and can righteously rant about the Supreme Court ignoring his own argument in the case.

He doesn't just talk. He's very engaged.

18 posted on 06/27/2012 7:27:34 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...
Ping!

Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.

19 posted on 06/27/2012 7:41:08 AM PDT by HiJinx (He who controls the water, controls life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

YES....LEVIN is magnificent, especially in these times when our Constitution is under attack....Please God protect him...and us.


20 posted on 06/27/2012 8:24:31 AM PDT by goodnesswins (What has happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; TADSLOS; Grampa Dave; Condor51; kevcol; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; ...
Levin: "The USSC's Arizona decision clears the way to sue sanctuary cities, and states with in-state tuition" (and a myriad of other giveaways to illegals)

RESPONSE The ever-vigilant IRS, and the SEC, not to mention banking oversight agencies, would also be interested:

EXHIBIT A states and munis using proceeds from tax-exempt bond issues to finance illegals would be prime targets---- particularly b/c using tax-exempt dollars for illegal purposes is a crime. Now, bond issues approved via referendum at the ballot box is a criminal biggie---since full disclosure WRT use of the tax-exempt monies was not made to potential "investors" in tax-exempt bonds---who have now been unwittingly opened to IRS and SEC frsud.

HINT Investors in tax-exempt muni bonds should sue munis.

EXHIBIT B Then there's the Bank Secrecy Act----as follows: Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks are required to establish, implement and maintain programs designed to detect and report suspicious activity indicative of money laundering and other financial crimes WRT to agencies receiving govt monies.

“The Bank Secrecy Act was enacted to protect the banking public from harm by identifying and detecting money laundering from criminal enterprises, terrorism, tax evasion or other unlawful activities,” the special agent in charge for IRS Criminal Investigation, explained.

<>NOTE WELL The Bank Secrecy Act was passed to protect the public from harm by identifying and detecting criminal enterprises, money laundering, tax evasion and other unlawful activities.....including terrorism.

================================================================

Some of the pertinent crimes-----for your reading pleasure:

REFERENCE----ICE's "documents and benefits fraud task force" found a common practice among "impoverished" illegals is to buy several forged/faked identities for several thousand dollars each----the illegal then votes and rides the US gravy train under several names.

<><> Jose Madrigal---the Washington state rapist--- had some 30 identities. And probably voted and collected US benefits under every single identity.

<><> Another illegal used multiple identites to bilk UI systems of some $3.5 million.

=========================================

US Dept of the Treasury Says Illegal Aliens Collecting Billions in Tax Credits According to the US Dept of Treasury’s Inspector General, more than $4.2 billion in additional child credits were paid out in 2010 to illegal immigrants. In 2005, the pay outs totaled $924 million. This program allows low income earners to claim a $1,000 per child credit.

$20 billion EITC is estimated to have been paid out to these cunning "impoverished" illegals. Most of them are collecting over and over again-----using multiple identities-----falsifying official apps---claiming children they do not have and/or falsely stating kids are back in their homelands.

REFERENCE March 8, 2012 KENNER, La. -- Kenner police arrested illegal Marvin Baca who sold false W-2 forms to another illegal immigrant for $1,500. Baca sold fraudulent W-2 forms for $1,500 to other Hispanics here illegally.

Police said that on one of the forged W-2 forms had a SS no of a person living in Virginia. Police said illegal Hispanics purchase fictitious W-2 forms and file false tax returns with the government to receive EITC refunds. Baca was charged with one count of ID theft and two counts of forgery.

21 posted on 06/27/2012 8:31:02 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Levin has a great point.


22 posted on 06/27/2012 11:41:16 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sivad
unintended consequences."

How about this being just one more example of OBAMA playing tiddlywinks instead of chess; ie, not thinking ahead to properly analyze the repercussions of HIS actions?

Amateur night at the white house.

23 posted on 06/27/2012 11:48:31 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (OBAMA!!'s name is all caps as sarcasm to indicate a lack of respect, as he does not deserve it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sivad
unintended consequences."

How about this being just one more example of OBAMA playing tiddlywinks instead of chess; ie, not thinking ahead to properly analyze the repercussions of HIS actions?

Amateur night at the white house.

24 posted on 06/27/2012 11:49:00 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (OBAMA!!'s name is all caps as sarcasm to indicate a lack of respect, as he does not deserve it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Piranha; kevcol
bupkis, not butkus. Butkus is in football. Bupkis is Yiddish for “nothing”.

Butkus is football for "he hit me and now I can't remember my name."

25 posted on 06/27/2012 11:50:15 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sivad; Perdogg; P-Marlowe; jazusamo; Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl

I disagree. The decision said that presidential whim should be considered by courts. Seriously. By Obama’s whim he chooses not to enforce immigration law in Arizona, and the court said that was fine and dandy.

I assume the whimsical decision cuts the other direction, also. He can ignore violations of his whim as well as object to violations.

Beyond that, perdogg has, I think, properly explained Roberts’ vote. Since Kagan had recused herself, had Roberts voted with the conservatives, it would have been a 4-4 tie. That would have meant that the 9th circuit decision would have stood and the entire law would have been thrown out. As it was they got to (for the time being) keep 1/4 of the law, the police check part.


26 posted on 06/27/2012 12:04:47 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Listening to Levin is like attending a free university class...with lots of good sarcasm and humor added. :)


27 posted on 06/27/2012 12:16:36 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thanks for the ping!


28 posted on 06/27/2012 12:17:39 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

I believe Obama’s entire motivation is twofold. To get the illegal vote and create ANY diversion from the crap economy.


29 posted on 06/27/2012 12:35:01 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Perdogg

I think you may be right and am pretty sure Perdogg is on the 1070 vote.

Thanks for your ping.


30 posted on 06/27/2012 1:01:28 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

This means that our President should be sent to jail for aiding, abetting and harboring illegal aliens in our country!


31 posted on 06/27/2012 1:10:51 PM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Liz

I wonder how mant hospitals have closed because of illegals?

200?

500?


32 posted on 06/27/2012 1:21:22 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Concur....Now to get others to see the forest not the trees.
33 posted on 06/27/2012 1:36:32 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

The more interesting question is not about sanctuary cities, but about what other state laws could be overturned using this logic.

For instance, it seems to me that the Fed has complete control over what drugs are considered legal via the FDA.

So it seems to me that it would be extremely easy to overthrow all the state medical marijuana laws. If fact, all state drug laws could be overturned on the basis that they have different penalties than the Fed laws.


34 posted on 06/27/2012 1:48:47 PM PDT by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Tom Tancredo's foundation will sue Metro State over immigrant tuition.

Not to file I guess.

35 posted on 06/27/2012 2:28:44 PM PDT by itsahoot (About that Coup d'├ętat we had in 08, anyone worried yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

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