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

Skip to comments.

IN CASE YOU DIDN'T GET THE MEMO
The Dead Pelican ^ | January 13, 2005

Posted on 01/13/2006 3:59:17 PM PST by CajunConservative

**EXCLUSIVE**

On the heels of the recall effort against Governor Kathleen Blanco, a memo has been issued to the heads of all state agencies, THE DEAD PELICAN has learned.

The memo, issued today, states that "No employee in the classified service and no member of the Commission shall take active part in an effort to recall from office an elected public official, or seek, solicit or attempt to coerce any person including any employee in the classified service and any member of the Commission into participating in any such effort or signing a recall petition except that nothing contained herein shall prevent an employee in the classified service or member of the Commission from signing a recall petition."

The list of forbidden activities drones on. It states that a state classified employee may sign a recall petition. However, a state classified employee may not take any active part in a recall effort. Examples of what a state classified employee may not do are:

1. Circulate a recall petition

2. Ask others to sign a recall petition

3. Offer to mail a recall petition for others

4. Man a table collecting signatures on a recall petition

5. E-mail a recall petition to others

Signing a recall petition is personal business, not to be conducted on state time or using state resources, the memo read.

Employees may not sign and submit recall petitions on line from their state computers, the memo read.

To view the entire memo, and to verify that I'm not making this up, go here.

Developing... ------------------------------------------------------ By Chad E. Rogers Jan 13, 2005 (c) THE DEAD PELICAN http://www.thedeadpelican.com/


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: blanko; democrats; governor; louisiana; meemaw; recall; recallelections
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: RightWhale
They might be prohibited from running for offices that would have some jurisdiction over their department, or if they win the office they would have to resign.

I think the regulation here is unconstituional infringment on 1st amendment. Here is a summary of the (held constitutional) effect of the Hatch Act - referenced in Broadrick v. Oklahoma, cited above.

These federal and D.C. employees may-

These federal and D.C. employees may not-

http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm


21 posted on 01/13/2006 4:35:49 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

State and local civil servants follow the Federal to a degree. Local gov't employees may be allowed to wear campaign buttons on the job or or otherwise campaign or may not, that would be up to the local or state regulations. Federal employees are more restricted.


22 posted on 01/13/2006 4:43:12 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CajunConservative

Sounds like fear to me.

She's wearing the flour de leis of France. Just where does her loyalty lie?


23 posted on 01/13/2006 4:47:28 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
State and local civil servants follow the Federal to a degree. Local gov't employees may be allowed to wear campaign buttons on the job or or otherwise campaign or may not, that would be up to the local or state regulations. Federal employees are more restricted.

The above Hatch Act link describes exactly waht you say, state employees obtaing part of their income from Fed money are limited in political activity too.

But I bet you their are lawyers drafting a suit against whoever deigns to enforce the Louisiana regulations against Lousiana classified state employees. They've been denied the right to undertake a narrow type of political speech while off the job and out of uniform.

And I'd make sure the lawsuit got maximum publicity. Whoever promulagated the regulation was stupid - calling attention to the effort by making it unconsitutional. Sheesh.

24 posted on 01/13/2006 4:51:00 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bert

Um, the fleur di lis is quite popular here. It is the Saint's Logo for starters. It's also *in* as far as decorating goes. French Country decor is all the rage at the moment.


25 posted on 01/13/2006 4:58:19 PM PST by CajunConservative (Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Jindal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CajunConservative
Um, the fleur di lis is quite popular here. It is the Saint's Logo for starters. It's also *in* as far as decorating goes. French Country decor is all the rage at the moment.

The 6th floor carpet is covered with them.
26 posted on 01/13/2006 5:06:00 PM PST by Ellesu (www.thedeadpelican.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
State and local civil servants follow the Federal to a degree. Local gov't employees may be allowed to wear campaign buttons on the job or or otherwise campaign or may not, that would be up to the local or state regulations. Federal employees are more restricted.

Hmm. More complex than it looks. THis is an old rule, dating back to the early 1990's, and according to Louisiana official publications, the regulation is based on a cluase in the Louisiana State Constitution that prohibits state classified employees from engaging in political activities. Political activity is broadly defined as any effort to support or oppose a candidate for election or a political party in an election.

http://www.nsula.edu/businessaffairs/ppm/PersonnelActions/W-ProhibitedActivities.pdf

Article 10, Section 9 of the State Constitution is the base authority. Here is another summary:

http://www.cahsd.org/human_resources/Policies/Restricted%20Political%20Activties.doc

Go here -> http://www.dscs.state.la.us/search.htm and search for "14.1" You'll find lots of hits wehre people were prosecuted for violating the political activity prohibition, so there have already been lawsuits, no doubt. Interesting subject - but it looks like something that isn't Blanco's doing.

27 posted on 01/13/2006 5:11:24 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Here's a fun one ...

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Article X, Section 9(A) of the state constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:

No . . . employee in the classified service shall participate or engage in political activity; . . . except to exercise his right as a citizen to express his opinion privately, to serve as a commissioner or official watcher at the polls, and to cast his vote as he desires.

Article X, Section 9(C) defines "political activity" as "an effort to support or oppose the election of a candidate for political office or to support a particular political party in an election." The same prohibition is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 14.1(e) and the definition of "political activity" is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 1.24.1.

In this case, respondent wrote, for publication, a column that opposed the election of a candidate (Bush) for political office (the Presidency) and supported a particular political party (the Democratic Party) in an election. This is a clear violation of the Article; respondent far exceeded his right "as a citizen to express his opinion privately."

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, respondent is hereby suspended for a period of 5 working days. At the option of his employing agency, a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a 5 day suspension may be substituted for this suspension. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Commission took into consideration respondent's years of service as well as the fact that the violation was not wilful.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010457.HTM

This guy got dinged for composing a published article. Yikes. I wonder if a letter to the editor is also proscribed activity.
28 posted on 01/13/2006 5:34:15 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I as a State Employee and a member of the Army Reserve had a "Impeach Clinton" bumper sticker, my only defense was that it was on the passenger side and that was the Wife's side and that it was "her" bumper sticker, even though I agreed with it.

I cannot infringe my Wife's freedom of speech (can't even slow her down ;^)

TT
29 posted on 01/13/2006 5:39:30 PM PST by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
I as a State Employee and a member of the Army Reserve had a "Impeach Clinton" bumper sticker, my only defense was that it was on the passenger side and that was the Wife's side and that it was "her" bumper sticker, even though I agreed with it. I cannot infringe my Wife's freedom of speech (can't even slow her down ;^)

LOL. The rules read that your wife's car can have a bumper sticker, even if you are in it. I'm still rifling through the cases, and sent an e-mail to Chad at the Deadpelican apprising him of this thread.

I'm amazed that public servants can have so much of their freedom of speech curtailed. THere are a number of places wehre donations of $100 or so to political parties were met with ramifications. One guy's wife donated $100 or $200 from a joint checking account, adn the guy was told, "one more time, and you will be dismissed." He didn't even know his wife made the donation. Hope he stays on her good sidde, 'cause now she has a way to get him fired ;-)

30 posted on 01/13/2006 5:55:18 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Joining the long list of Louisiana ex-pats, eh?

You will find yourself in good company ... if we would organize, think what clout we might have!

We were in the vanguard of disgusted citizens shaking the dust of that place off our feet forever. I thought I would be weeping as the plane took off ... but, various typical Louisiana things had gone on right up to the moment of departure ... and, instead of weeping ... I was shaking my fist ... LOL

31 posted on 01/13/2006 5:56:59 PM PST by caryatid (Jolie Blonde, 'gardez donc, quoi t'as fait ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Another one ... (tell me to quit if you don't find these interesting)

Findings of Fact

1. Brian Ducote (Ducote) has been a state classified employee for 15 years. He works for the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), doing maintenance work on the Sunshine Bridge and its toll plaza. He has a tenth grade education and less than a third grade reading level.

2. Ducote and Jeffery Poche (Poche) have been friends since 1987. During the fall of 1995, Poche was a candidate for election to the Ascension Parish Council. Poche asked Ducote to drive his truck for him and Ducote agreed.

3. On three different occasions during the fall of 1995, Ducote drove Poches truck while Poche walked along side, soliciting votes. Poches truck displayed several signs promoting his candidacy. ...

Conclusions of Law

Article X, Section 9(A) of the state constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:

No . . . employee in the classified service shall participate or engage in political activity; . . . except to exercise his right as a citizen to express his opinion privately, to serve as a commissioner or official watcher at the polls, and to cast his vote as he desires.

Article X, Section 9(C) defines "political activity" as "an effort to support or oppose the election of a candidate for political office or to support a particular political party in an election." The same prohibition is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 14.1(e) and the definition of "political activity" is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 1.24.1.

Thus, any activity to help a candidate get elected to a public office is prohibited. Here, Ducote drove Poches truck (which prominently displayed Poches campaign signs) to free up Poche so he could actively solicit votes. This is a public display of support for a candidate that is clearly prohibited by the state constitution and the Civil Service Rules.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, Ducote is hereby formally reprimanded and suspended without pay for one working day. At the option of his employing agency, a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a one day suspension may be substituted for this suspension. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Commission took into consideration the following circumstances: Ducotes many years of good work, as attested to by his appointing authority; the unintentional nature of the violation; Ducotes immediate cooperation when the matter was brought to his attention; and Ducotes limited reading ability.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0011741.HTM

On the future ones, I'll skip the boilerplate that lays out the constitutional provision that is being enforced.
32 posted on 01/13/2006 6:05:42 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Here are summaries of most of them. I skipped the one where the employee wore a shirt to work. Looking at these has me thinking that similar regulations are common, and that the "line drawing" isn't all that easy.


2. During November 1992, respondent found, in a local newspaper, a copy of a petition seeking the recall of Governor Edwin W. Edwards. Respondent brought the newspaper with her to work to make a copy of the petition. Respondent made three copies of the petition. She then signed one copy and left it and two more copies on the table next to the copy machine. Respondent attached her handwritten note to the copies. The note was initialed "kv" and stated: "If you want to sign-I'll send it in."

3. Four of respondent's co-workers (also classified state employees) signed the petition before the petition was picked up by the investigator for DSCS. ...

If respondent had just made a copy of the recall petition, signed it and mailed it in, she would not have violated Civil Service Rule 14.1(e)5. However, by making additional copies of the petition and offering to send it in for others, respondent made it easier for others to participate in the recall effort. Therefore, the Commission concludes that respondent took an active part in the recall effort. Respondent's ignorance of the Civil Service Rules does not excuse her actions. The Commission repeats the warning it has previously issued. Classified employees are expected to familiarize themselves with the rules governing their employment, particularly the rules governing prohibited political activity. An employee who does not do so acts at his or her peril.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article X, Section 10(A)(4) of the state constitution, the Commission orders respondent suspended for 30 calendar days. Alternatively, at its option, respondent's employer may subject respondent to a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a 30 calendar day suspension.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010297.HTM


1. Jerald J. Juneau works as a Program Manager for the Department of Education. He has been a classified state employee since January 1995. Before becoming a classified employee, he worked for 25 years as an unclassified employee.

2. Fred Dent was a candidate for Mayor. Mr. Juneau has known Mr. Dent since college. On May 5, 2000, Mr. Juneau contributed $25 to Mr. Dent's campaign. On July 11, 2000, Mr. Juneau contributed $200 to Mr. Dent's campaign. On August 28, 2000, Mr. Juneau contributed an additional $25 to Mr. Dent's campaign.

3. Jim Benham was a candidate for Councilman. Mr. Juneau had been the Kenilworth Civic Association president five times and had met Mr. Benham through Civil Association activities. On August 4, 2000, Mr. Benham asked Mr. Juneau for a contribution to his campaign. Thinking it would benefit the residents of Kenilworth, Mr. Juneau gave Mr. Benham $50. Mr. Benham explained that the Civic Association could not have made the contribution because its by-laws prohibited political activity. ...

Contrary to Mr. Juneau's belief, the prohibition against political activity by state classified employees is not limited to statewide elected offices. It applies to all political offices. By making contributions on four different occasions to two candidates' campaigns for local political offices, Mr. Juneau violated the Civil Service Article and Civil Service Rule 14.1(e). It is particularly disheartening that Mr. Juneau chose to violate the state constitution rather than his Civic Association's by-laws.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, we hereby suspend Mr. Juneau, without pay, for fifteen working days. At its option, the Department of Education may substitute a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a fifteen-day suspension (i.e., $2312.31).

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0014284.html


3. On January 16, 1993, Best's wife came to respondent's house and asked respondent's wife for a contribution to Best's campaign. Respondent's wife wrote a check in the amount of $100 to "James Best Campaign Fund" and gave the check to Best's wife. The check was drawn against a joint checking account maintained by respondent and his wife.

4. Respondent was unaware of the contribution. His wife carries the check book and balances the account. Respondent learned about the contribution when the investigator from the DSCS inquired about it.

5. Respondent and his wife do not live within the 18th Judicial District and therefore Best was not a candidate for whom they could vote. ...

In this case, a political contribution was made from funds belonging jointly to respondent and his wife. This is a clear violation of the Civil Service Article and the Civil Service Rules. However, respondent did not personally make the contribution and his completely credible testimony was that he was not even aware that the contribution had been made. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that only a warning is necessary in this case. While an unclassified spouse may make political contributions out of his or her own separate funds, such contributions cannot be made out of funds which belong jointly to a classified employee. A classified employee is expected to discuss the political activity prohibitions with his/her spouse who is not subject to those prohibitions to avoid the situation that presented itself in this case.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby warned that any recurrence of the activity described herein will be severely penalized by demotion, suspension or discharge.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010456.HTM


3. Respondent frequently writes as a guest columnist for the Shreveport Times. He does this as a hobby and is not paid for his columns.

4. While the presidential campaign was underway, respondent wrote, for publication, a column which criticized the Republican Party, opposed the reelection of George Bush and supported the Democratic Party. This column was published in the Shreveport Times on September 15, 1992. ...

In this case, respondent wrote, for publication, a column that opposed the election of a candidate (Bush) for political office (the Presidency) and supported a particular political party (the Democratic Party) in an election. This is a clear violation of the Article; respondent far exceeded his right "as a citizen to express his opinion privately."

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, respondent is hereby suspended for a period of 5 working days.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010457.HTM


3. One evening some time later, Ms. Ransom knocked on respondent's door while respondent was cooking supper and asked to speak to respondent's husband. Respondent said he was not home. Ms. Ransom had a piece of paper in her hand and explained that she was out getting signatures of people who felt she had done a good job as Police Juror. Respondent agreed that Ms. Ransom had done a good job and offered to sign the piece of paper. Respondent glanced at the paper but did not read it; it contained only a few typewritten paragraphs. The paper did not indicate to what use it would be put nor did respondent have presence of mind to inquire of Ms. Ransom what she was going to do with the paper. Respondent went back to cooking supper and gave the matter no further thought.

4. On October 15, 1991, the Monroe News Star published a political advertisement. The heading read: IMPORTANT NOTICE: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE VOTERS OF POLICE JUROR-DISTRICT "E." The letter touted Ms. Ransom's achievements and concluded:

The below signed voters encourage you to vote and lend your support to Adele Ransom. Help us ensure that our Police Jury representative will be a sincere and caring individual.
The Committee to Re-Elect Adele Ransom

Respondent's was one of 52 signatures which appeared on the advertisement. ...

In this case, respondent signed a piece of paper thinking that she was simply thanking an elected official for a job well done. This would not have been a prohibited political activity. Later, without respondent's knowledge, what respondent signed was incorporated into a published political endorsement. Had respondent signed the piece of paper knowing that it was going to be used as part of a political advertisement, she would have been guilty of engaging in prohibited political activity. However, the Commission finds quite believable respondent's testimony (and the corroborating affidavit of Ms. Ransom) that respondent did not know that what she signed would later be used as part of political advertisement. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that no penalty should be imposed.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0009708.HTM


3. One day, the dispatcher of the Police Department called Mr. Cowser and told him he needed to come by the police station and have his picture taken. Mr. Cowser did so. He did not ask what the picture would be used for.

4. When he had his picture taken, Mr. Cowser knew that Wesley Horton, Jonesboro's Chief of Police, was running for reelection. However, he did not connect the two events.

5. Mr. Cowser's wife wrote a statement endorsing Chief Horton's candidacy and delivered it to the police station the day after Mr. Cowser had his picture taken. Mr. Cowser knew his wife was writing a statement endorsing Chief Horton.

6. On October 3, 2002, Mr. Cowser's picture appeared in the Jackson Independent, a local newspaper, under a banner entitled "Jonesboro Police Officers Speak Out." Mr. Cowser was identified as a reserve officer and next to his picture was the statement his wife had written. The statement said, "Wesley Horton has the knowledge, experience and training it takes to fill the position of police chief. He also has a caring concern for all the people of the town of Jonesboro." ...

Mr. Cowser unwittingly violated these prohibitions. His fellow officers who were running the campaign were unaware that Mr. Cowser could not endorse the Chief. Therefore, it would not have occurred to them to warn Mr. Cowser what his picture would be used for. However, Mr. Cowser was aware that his political activity was restricted. He could have avoided the problem by simply asking why the police department wanted his picture. He did not think to do so and as he put it, "When I realized what I had done, it was too late."

Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the state is not well served by dismissing or demoting Mr. Cowser. As an appropriate penalty, we declare him ineligible for the merit increase for which he would otherwise become eligible on March 18, 2003.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0014917.htm


Respondent is a classified state employee who works as an RN Supervisor at the Washington St. Tammany Regional Medical Center. On April 1, 1992, complainant filed formal charges with the Commission wherein he asserts that respondent engaged in prohibited political activity on behalf of her husband, who was a candidate for election to the office of Clerk of Court for Washington Parish. ...

1. Respondent was aware that she was prohibited from engaging in political activity and knew that she had an obligation to her job to stay out of her husband's campaign. However, when her entire family became actively involved in her husband's campaign, respondent felt an even stronger obligation to her family and, in her words, she "just got caught up in it."

2. Mr. Crockett cautioned respondent about her political activities on the Tuesday following the primary election. Respondent immediately discontinued her activities. Although respondent's husband made the runoff, respondent did not assist in his campaign between the primary election and the general election.

3. Mr. Crain won the election. ...

In this case, respondent clearly violated these prohibitions. In reaching its decision not to order respondent's dismissal, the Commission takes into consideration respondent's 14 years of unblemished service, the fact that her political activities were on behalf of her husband rather than on behalf of some other candidate and that respondent discontinued her political activities at the point in which they probably would have done her husband the most good - before the general election. Accordingly, respondent is ordered suspended from her position for a period of sixty calendar days or, at the option of her employer, respondent may be subjected to a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a sixty calendar day suspension.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0009855.HTM


2. In 1988, respondent and his wife bought a car for their daughter to drive to and from school. Respondent's daughter was and is insured as the primary driver of the car.

3. In September or October 1991, the car that respondent's daughter regularly drove needed maintenance so respondent was driving it to and from work 2 or 3 days per week.

4. In October 1991, Don Gerald, an investigator for the Department of State Civil Service, called respondent and asked if he had a bumper sticker on his car. Respondent said that he did not think so, but when he looked at the rear bumper of the car, he found a sticker that read: "Pop Hattaway '92." At this time, Pop Hattaway was a candidate for Sheriff of Grant Parish. Respondent immediately removed the bumper sticker from the car. ...

In cases like this, the respondent's usual defense is that he did not know that the activity was prohibited - a defense that the Commission has rejected. See Investigation of Russell, Laviolette and Delacruz (Docket No. 7129) decided October 17, 1988. However, this case is different. Respondent herein knew that the activity was prohibited; but his uncontradicted testimony was that he did not know that the bumper sticker was on the car. Before an employee can be punished for an activity, it must be shown not that he was aware that the activity was prohibited, but rather that he willfully engaged in the activity. That showing was not made in this case. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that no penalty should be imposed.

http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0009710.HTM



33 posted on 01/13/2006 7:00:02 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

"I take it that the other activities are prohibited even on the person's own time, unless they resign their state classified position."

That's how I read it.


34 posted on 01/14/2006 4:01:26 AM PST by jocon307 (The Silent Majority - silent no longer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CajunConservative

"Oh, and I'll send you another copy of that memo."

35 posted on 01/14/2006 4:09:20 AM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It's standard to prohibit gov't employees from conducting politics on the job.<

...and many private companies to boot also.

I think this "Alert" falls into the category of "much ado about nothing"

Nowhere does it state you can't do any of these activities as a private citizen

If it did that, that would be a serious problem

36 posted on 01/14/2006 4:20:17 AM PST by Popman ("What I was doing wasn't living, it was dying. I really think God had better plans for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Popman
Nowhere does it state you can't do any of these activities as a private citizen

That's correct. If you give up your job as a toll booth attendant, you can make public political expressions. But you have to give up your classified state job in order to become that private citizen.

37 posted on 01/14/2006 2:31:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Since employees were free NOT to drive residents away from Katrina on those buses, I don't see how they can be kept from being involved in this on their free time. A question for the court, I presume.


38 posted on 01/14/2006 2:36:58 PM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 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