UFW Moves to Sue Its Critics: Me! [Updated]
The United Farm Workers union -- founded 40 years ago by Cesar Chavez-- has found a novel way to quash criticism of its poor performance in the fields. It is now directly threatening to sue its critics in the press.
Including me.
Last Friday the L.A Weekly was handed a 20 page lawyers' letter demanding it either retract what I wrote last month, or face an expensive lawsuit.
This ominous tactic has been directly imported from the playbooks of the most ruthless corporations -- who have long used so-called SLAPP suits not to seek redress, but rather to silence their critics. That the UFW, founded on the principles of social justice, now recurrs to a similar chilling device against the press -- the alternative press in this case-- speaks volumes about the crisis the union currently finds itself in.
Here is a link to my just-pubished response to the threatened UFW suit. Here is, also, the full text as it appears in this week's L.A. Weekly:
Gag Me With a Grape
UFW moves to silence its media critics
By MARC COOPER
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
In 35 years of writing about politics, I have done what little I could to help bring scrutiny to corrupt government agencies or officials: I’ve outed members of foreign-government death squads; uncovered greedy slumlords; blasted corporations for their workplace practices; exposed wealthy cults for staging massive public hoaxes; and, modestly, done my best to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”
At times my work has drawn criticism, protest, denunciation and condemnation. Yet not once has anything I’ve penned drawn the direct threat of a lawsuit. Not until now, that is. Sitting in front of me is a 20-page demand that threatens such action if the Weekly does not “correct” or retract what I have written.
The threat doesn’t come from an offended Bush-administration official, nor from a fat-cat factory owner, nor a sweatshop operator. It comes, rather, from lawyers representing a union. The United Farm Workers.
The L.A. Times has been handed a similar threat. So has the Bakersfield Californian. Even some lonely bloggers who have recently written about the UFW have been contacted by the union or its hired PR agents and directly warned not to continue criticizing it.
This attack on critical reporters is the UFW’s orchestrated response to the Times’ recent four-part series on the union, which raised some very serious doubts over how the legacy of Cesar Chavez is playing out in the fields of California. Times reporter Miriam Pawel did an excellent job detailing the union’s straying from its original mission and failing to organize any significant number of workers while building a network of interlocking agencies it rather arrogantly calls the “farm worker movement.” In a column last month, and following up on my own critical reporting on the UFW last summer, I congratulated Pawel for her writing and advised UFW supporters to re-assess the work the union is doing.
A lot of well-meaning people didn’t like what they read in the Times or in these pages. They just assumed that the union started by Cesar Chavez should be retained in some iconic category, forever immune to criticism or review. The message coming from the pieces criticizing the UFW is certainly an uncomfortable one. For those who sincerely believe in the principles of social justice, in the rights of workers and unions, and who have empathy for the faceless migrants who work our fields, hearing that the UFW may not be doing its job could — and should — be unsettling. But that’s no reason to shoot the messengers. I didn’t write my long piece on the farm workers last summer because I got some sort of thrill in slagging the UFW. My reportage focused, with open sympathy, on the deplorable plight of average California farm workers and, while the UFW is hardly the cause of their predicament, the union nevertheless shares some of the responsibility for the current human disaster in our fields.
Some of the more thoughtful, longtime allies of the union responded to the Times series by suggesting the local Gray Lady focus on more comprehensive labor reporting, and not just open its pages to union coverage when the message is so negative. That seems a reasonable point to me — though in no way does it undermine the integrity of Pawel’s series.
The union itself, however, has responded in the worst way possible. Instead of taking any of the very valid press criticism to heart and conducting some minimal good-faith re-examination of its own work, it has, instead, bunkered in and lashed out wildly at its critics. The UFW has enlisted Hollywood publicist Steve Rivers, as well as local Congressman Howard Berman, in its defensive PR campaign. Berman, to his credit, is an original co-author of landmark state agricultural-labor-protection legislation, and his tight relationship with the UFW dates back decades. But Berman and the UFW are also integral political partners, and union cash was a primary lubricant of the legendary Waxman-Berman political machine. No wonder, then, that the UFW has called in its chits in hiring Berman and other prominent Democrats — like former Clinton cabinet secretary Mickey Kantor — to run offense against the press.
The chilling tactics now being employed by the UFW are those it has learned from its abusive employers. Simultaneously threatening a number of news agencies and reporters with expensive lawsuits smells suspiciously similar to the corporate strategy of pressing so-called SLAPP suits against public critics. These suits are never intended to seek any real redress — only to inflict punishment. In this case, their collateral effect would be to shut down media scrutiny of the UFW.
I’m not going to put the reader through the “he said, she said” of what the UFW objects to in my reporting. But I can fairly summarize its complaint by saying it vigorously disagrees with my suggestion that it has failed in its historic mission. When you consider that at most 2 percent of California’s farm workers are represented by the UFW, and that working conditions overall for those workers are in decline, it’s difficult to conclude otherwise. The UFW is free to dissent from that notion. But since this is still America, a difference of opinion is not, and should not be, the basis of a lawsuit.
If the UFW would spend as much energy organizing farm workers into unions as it is now investing in its campaign to shut down reporters who criticize it, we would all be better off. -- + --
To use that old industry saw, I'm standing by my story. Below you can find the link to the January 13 column I wrote that elicited the lawsuit threat. Read it for yourself and make up your own mind. Do you think journalists and newspapers should be gagged for publishing that sort of opinion?
Here is a link to the Jan. 13 column I wrote last month over which the UFW is threatening to sue.
Here is also a link to the long feature story I did last summer deploring the state of California's farm workers and also criticizing the UFW for its ineffectiveness.
Here is a link to L.A. Times reporter Miriam Pawel's four-part series on the UFW which touched off the current furor.
UPDATE: OK, I'm not making this up. The UFW has just sent out a mass email announcing the UFW's Valentine's Day Clothing Sale. The text of the solicitation reads:
This Valentine's Day, everyone will see your heart is in the
right place when you wear these great UFW shirts and hats. And
what could be better than free music to set the mood? When you
purchase items from this page, we'll include our inspirational
Si Se Puede Cassette FREE.
The recipient is then directed to this link which flagrantly merchandizes the UFW's logo in every possible way: t-shirts, polo shirts, hats, baby jumpers, tank tops. My two favorites: at the top of the page check out the for-sale "Si se puede" wristbands. At the bottom, don't miss this offer from the UFW:
Si se puede!
February 8th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Will this, in fact, result in an “expensive lawsuit” ? It seems frivolous and punitive on it’s face, since it’s a response to an opinion piece and not to anything that could remotely be considered slander or defamation in the legal sense. Can crap lawsuits like this actually result in a “little guy” - a reporter, relatively small news organization, etc. - in having to pay significant lawyers fees out of pocket to fend it off ? These things should be thrown out with no second thought. I would suggest that if, indeed, this thing ends up in court that you forgo hiring a lawyer and defend yourself on simple 1st Amendment grounds as a citizen journalist. You can make the case yourself more forcefully than most lawyers and paying a lawyer as a mouthpiece on an issue this fundamental plays into their game of trying to impose self-censorship. Consult with a lawyer familiar with the issues, but then argue your own case. And, as a matter of strategy, you’ll make them look even more like thugs if it’s lawyer against journalist. (Don’t do this because some crank on your blog suggested it, but think about it…)
February 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
This is ominous news. My guess is that their telemarketers are reporting serious criticism and/or a drop in contributions since the series in LAT appeared (not that yours had no impact…). As you probably know, California law provides potent remedies for SLAPP suits, CCP 425.16 (but note 425.17, which was enacted because the same corporate thugs who were filing SLAPP suits began to abuse 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, filing unjustified motions against those who sued them.)
This is just the sort of case that calls for what is called a “special motion to strike”–a lawsuit intended to stifle critical free speech. This is only operative if you are actually sued, not if you are “just” threatened. Do you want to obtain money from UFW? That is up to you, of course. If you would be sued by one or more of the foundations, though, you might just direct the anti-SLAPP motion against it/them.
Well, anyway, the response probably was to be expected, at least against the Times. Very, very sad. As I said in reponse to your 1/13 post, I wonder where Dolores Huerta stands with respect to this tactic.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I know what blackmail and greenmail are, this sounds like lawmail.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Marc…I’m sure you’ve already thought of this, but be sure to blog this at The Nation, of course, but probably more important, at Huffington Post. That’s where you’ll get some significant overlap with the Mickey Kantor/Steve Rivers/Howard Berman mileiu. I’m not sure Hollywood publicists or Beltway machers are capable of shame, but you can try.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Reg… this matter is in the hands of great lawyers, thanks. Michael.. just so you know, Dolores Huerta’s son, Emilio, is one of the lawyers who signed the demand. He’s also named in the Times series as the guy who made a million bucks by “flipping” a piece of UFW real estate that has been earmarked for low income housing. Too many.. yeayh
February 8th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Probably not great advice on reflection, but I feel strongly that you should make sure that your own voice on the principle of this issue becomes part of the record, and not just legal maneuvers.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Oh yes, be sure to mention this at the Huffington Post - Deepak Chopra will change a few mantras for you…
February 8th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Its just another example of an organization which started out with a noble purpose being corrupted in later years by those who simply use that same organization as a power and money base. You have obviously hit a nerve that has effected their income stream or power. Of course this cannot be tolerated. You and others have dared to question their motives and results. It doesnt seem to matter whether ones politics are on the left or right for many when it comes down to principle vs power and money. I would take their assinine, childish, and frantic lawyer tricks as a compliment. I also would encourage you to take this to the next level of reporting. Using their baseless blackmailing as a springboard you might blog about how much money these tactics are costing their members and you might also interview migrant workers with their take on this. Keep up the good work.
Carl Sanders
February 8th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Nothing like a lawsuit to make sure youre pushing all the right buttons.
Unbelievable.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
If they’re threatening libel (defamation) simple truth of the claims should suffice. They are public figures so the standard is high.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
How pathetic of the UFW.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
“didn’t write my long piece on the farm workers last summer because I got some sort of thrill in slagging the UFW. My reportage focused, with open sympathy, on the deplorable plight of average California farm workers and, while the UFW is hardly the cause of their predicament, the union nevertheless shares some of the responsibility for the current human disaster in our fields.”
Well if you documented your facts, to support your allegations then it’s not slander.
It’s ironic, but I am reading a book entitled “The Global Class War,” and it describes the exploitative unions in Mexico—caused primarily by NAFTA.
The union leadership receives generous payments from the company and in turn enforces labor discipline, by force if necessary, using its own thugs and the local national police.
In Mexico workers often do not know the name of the union that takes its dues out of their paychecks, and when they ask, are told it is none of their business.
According to one estimate, less than 10 percent of the labor agreements in Mexico are actually negotiated, and practically none among “ maquiladora” factories –that is why the truly industrious want to get the heck out of that hell hole called Mexico.
It’s another oligarchy with a medieval mentality that we support obligingly.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
If you listen closely you can hear Cesar Chávez spinning in his grave.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Michael Crosby Says:
February 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
My guess is that their telemarketers are reporting serious criticism and/or a drop in contributions since the series in LAT appeared (not that yours had no impact…).
——————————–
BINGO! Its losing its shine!
February 8th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Sorry to hear about Dolores’ son. It’s saddening.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Marc I support you completely and unreseverdly. This is simply outrageous. I thought if anything you were very generous with your reporting. The Lawsuit as you say is merely aimed at suppressing the truth in your reporting.
The situation is what it is, as you point out. Lawsuits wont’ change the truth.
Sadly, the UFW lost it’s best hope for automation and making most jobs go away for a few, more highly paid, automated jobs ala the Mine Workers Union (mostly). Of course, illegal immigration is part of it too.
What’s a SLAAP suit? Dunno.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Totally OT but this clip vindicates your views on Chris Mathews…
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Torrie1.mov
February 9th, 2006 at 7:49 am
[…] http://marccooper.com/ufw-moves-to-sue-i… […]
February 9th, 2006 at 8:01 am
What a shame. I think the point that’s not being hit on here is organizing. With the exception of SEIU and a few others, most of the labor movement doesn’t really organize anymore. Some of this is understandable only in the sense that labor law is so awful — crappy under Clinton, a nightmare under Bush — that the traditional avenues to a contract can take years. In service industries with high employee turnover this is like herding cats with ADD. But once unions abandon their core mission, helping workers, they become obsessed with their own survival under the ruse of “being able to fight another day.”
February 9th, 2006 at 9:31 am
In the words of Gov William J. LePetomaine: “Damn unions are ruining the West!”
February 9th, 2006 at 9:34 am
You and Stossel should sit down for a cup of coffee and have a chat. He can tell you what to expect when you go after sacred cows.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:42 am
The problem with most contemporary unions is that they are no longer run by the workers but rather by college educated professionals who have never gotten their hands dirty. Labor law is so byzantine that only specialist can understand it. Such specialist have become the true powers with the unions and their best interest do not necessarily coincide with the best interest of the workers.
American unions were subverted in the 1960’s when Samual Gompers original idea that unions should run be for the workers and by the workers was subverted. Since then, unions have increasingly become mere fronts and cash cows for the intelligentsia.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Good reporting and commentary here, and it is has been long overdue. I am behind you, Marc.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Shannon said: “American unions were subverted in the 1960’s when Samual Gompers original idea that unions should run be for the workers and by the workers was subverted. Since then, unions have increasingly become mere fronts and cash cows for the intelligentsia.”
You mean like Marc’s daughter, the union organizer?
Kinda ironic, isn’t it?
February 9th, 2006 at 11:09 am
“Labor law is so byzantine that only specialist can understand it. ” The law is intentionally made byzantine to guarantee payments to politicians’ campaign coffers. I once commented to a worker who had to paid $35 per month union due that the union bosses were paid too much (north of $200,000 in the 90’s). She said, with absolute seriousness, (I paraphrase here) “You know what, they have to keep up with the employer, otherwise we won’t be respected at the negotiation table.” So the union bosses have to dress in Hugo Boss, deck with gold chains, like a Mafia don, in order to be respected at the negotiation table. In the old days, it was the King, then it is the State, then it is the Union, you can never run out of people ready to exploit those at the bottom of the totem pole.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Maybe we can get Nancy Pelosi on the job, using the union workers from her vinveyard to picket and press for UFW reform!
Oh, I forgot- she only hires non-union grape pickers….
February 9th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
[…] They eventually become no different from the corporations they supposedly oppose. […]
February 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I’m just a layman, but wouldn’t this be grounds for counter-suit and criminal charges against the union and its lawyers under USC 18-241 for conspiracy to violate your Contitutional rights?
February 9th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Samuel Gompers is rolling in his grave
Samuel Gompers original idea that unions should run be for the workers and by the workers was subverted, at minimun, 45 years ago, and a story I came across today is just the latest disturbing proof that many Labor Union
February 9th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Not sure if this has been posted, but the “Si Se Puede” tagline is the slogan for the Mexican National Soccer Team (El Tricolor) and may be copyrighted.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Between this and the reaction to the Danish cartoonists, hasn’t exactly been Respect For Free Press Week, has it?
February 9th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
What could be a more fitting gift to show ones romantic intentions on Valentines Day–a sexy UFW t-shirt that proudly says “VIVA LA MUJER”- –it’s even endorsed by Eva Longoria, a very special “Desperate Housewife.”
And if you don’t have a little sweetie in mind, you can always offer it to your local female grape picker.
Girls and young women will enjoy steppin’ out in these pretty UFW ladies shirts that say “Viva la Mujer” and that means, “Women Power!”
Red & White w/Gold Imprint: L, XL
White, Red: M, L, XL, XXL : Sizes run small.
Normally: $18, Sale Price: $13.
Granted the UFW does seem to have problems, but unions in the U.S. offer benefits and job security (not in the auto industry), healthcare and pension plans.
In the absence of universal health coverage, most Americans count on employers to provide medical, dental and vision care. Leaving the provision of these benefits to employer’s means that nearly 50 percent of all workers have no medical care through their employer, and far fewer have dental and vision coverage. However, for union workers that is not the case. Seventy-five percent of all private sector union workers have medical benefits, 53 percent have dental care and 41 percent have vision care.
It is not legitimate to make one sweeping negative statement about unions, because all workers would be better off in jobs that are unionized—but like all organizations, members must be involved, active and have input.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
The ones that benefit mostly form these articles are the growers. Which 4 growers are on the LA Times board of directors. And these same growers that are consistantly raking in the money.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Well, John… I think the growers benefit MUCH more from a powerless and ineffective union that is uninterested in and incapable of organizing farm workers. I think those like you — who claim to be interested in the dame– might actually benefit from understanding the realities on the ground, not just in your head or imagination. What could be better for growers than a might farm workers union that doesnt represent 99% of the workers????
February 9th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Marc…. Excellent column. Appalling behavior on the UFW’s part.
And, yeah, I got the Valentine’s day merchandize e-mail pitch too, and my irony-meter went straight into the red zone (and NOT in a Valentine-y sort of way).
Human beings. Whatta species!
February 9th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
in very limited defense of the UFW: the issue is not selling t-shirts. There’s no reason people on the left shouldn’t be able to put capitalism to good use (other unions do). It’s only crass if you think they’ve sold out — if you believe in their message (and haven’t read the LA times pieces, etc.), it’s putting your money where you’re mouth is.
The problem worth focusing on is the organizing record of the UFW.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
If you listen closely you can hear Cesar Chávez and Hugo Chávez spinning inside a tent up on Brokeback Mountain.
They invited Stalin, but he was busy Howard Dean that night.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
If no work is union the union won’t matter.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I don’t ever see any articles against growers. They are the ones using people to make money. And then people get mad at the UFW, it is not really their fault that the growers are this way?
February 9th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
SHANNON “American unions were subverted in the 1960’s when Samual Gompers original idea that unions should run be for the workers and by the workers was subverted. Since then, unions have increasingly become mere fronts and cash cows for the intelligentsia.”
The President of my union was a former janitor and medical assistant (they clean bed pans). The vice president was a food service worker. A group of members (that means WORKERS) elect the leadership that hands me my orders. Many of my co-workers left their jobs as medical assistants to become full time organizers.
It is true that a lot of the field and coordination staff are not from the rank and file.
But after you treat and feed cancer patients for 12 hours in hospital or have to mop floors all day, see how much you want to knock on doors and phone bank, or would that cut into your blogging time?
love,
the intelligentsia
February 9th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Well, Shannon. Andy Stern is a college educated boy (Yale I believe) who’s doing good things in the labor movement. Similarly, there’s no shortage of pedigreed proles who’re doing little but keeping the river of dues money flowing.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Eli….nobody’s complaining about the T-shirts. They’re rather snazzy, actually.
It’s the vicious, law suit-happy hypocracy that, when placed side-by-side with the chirpy share-the-love style product hawking….it’s hard not to find a tad grating.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Eric Blair: “You mean like Marc’s daughter, the union organizer ?”
I’m going to say it so Marc doesn’t have to. That’s doesn’t qualify as a respectable “cheap shot”. Doesn’t even rise to “petty”. Just stupid, childish and half-assed..
You know what to do - Go F… etc. etc.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Reg… thanks. But if u will read Natasha’s comments a couple of spaces above u will see she can answer for herself.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Just now read…Eric’s offensive post….
…and Natasha’s excellent come back. Well, done!
(And glad you slapped him around, reg. Couldn’t hurt. Blechhh!)
February 9th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Sorry I missed her excellent retort…just read that moron’s comment, got pissed and scrolled straight down to the “box”.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Hey Reg.. no problem. Anyone who defends my daughter becomes my lifelong compadre. I forgive you now all of your other myriad faults! (Love–MARC)
February 9th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Those are awesome products, but are they made by unioned or non-unioned peoples? Just curious.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
One by one, our respected institutions have sold us out. The AARP sold out to Reagan and apparently sold out on Medicare Part D. The news media sold out a long time ago. The Unions have become jokes. Why should the UFW be any different?
February 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Reality often intrudes on these stereotypes people toss around. Of course those of us actually in unions tend not to agree with them. That’s the way it is with experience that’s real.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Now Marc’s on the warpath — and rightly so — against the less than decorous tactics of the farmworker leadership, perhaps we should all decide what UFW really stands for.
Unlovable Freeloading Wankers?
Unfathomable Flingers of Writs?
Uncontrollable Farting Wallabees?
C’mon everyone, I need some help here.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:33 am
OT, but just in case anyone still harbors any doubt…
http://tinyurl.com/c84fg
February 10th, 2006 at 9:52 am
They’d just say he is a disgruntled worker but I have no doubt.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
The UFW forgot to mention that the t-shirts were made in Saipan by slave laborers—talk about a country that could use a union.
I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.
—Mahatma Gandhi
February 12th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I wrote my own response to the LA Times series on my blog. Having worked for the UFW at various times, I was ready to take the bait.
Like Cooper, I am sorry the UFW can’t find any response to criticism except to attack the critics. There is too much there for it to be possible to sweep it under the rug.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Dude, take my advice and do this quickly: Call a lawyer and put all of your personal assets in to a land trust. You need to get any and all assets you own out of your name, and quickly. Then, blog and blab all you want.
You can’t fight this on 1st Amend. rights - The Bill of Rights is an arrangement between citizens and the Fed. Govt.’ not between a citizen and a corporation/non-profit.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Discriminative working condition under the working VISA in Germany
I’m an Japanese and I work in KDDI Germany which an Japanese Telecom Company
I’ve worked in Germany for about one and half a year. My labor condition has been
worse and worse. I work 12:00 pm every weekday and I also work in the weekend.
I can’t speak German though they promised to have a chance to study before I
come from Japan. And there is no support of tax or penstion plan.
The overpayments of my salary was delayed for 3 month. There was no explain
to me. My boss seems to tell a lie, I have a working VISA but I don’t have any
clue to fight with such a discrimination from an accounting manager, Mr.Ohno
and Director,Mr.Watanabe and so on.
Please give me the way to protect myself without additionl cost and I’d like to
get compensation bacause I’ve lost much time, money and friends since
I come to Germany.
I attached the emails which I contacted to KDDI managers. I’m very sorry that
they’re written in Japanese.
Thank you very much for your help in advance.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
[…] When we last left off, the legendary United Farm Workers union and its affiliated “movement” was threatening to sue the L.A. Weekly over a column I had written. The L.A. Times was similarly threatened because of a ground-breaking investigative series on the house that Chavez built written by Miriam Pawel. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Very needed information found here, thank you for your work
August 7th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
auto insurace auto insurace
January 15th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! M8J2VPBKH4w
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
xfwmegi
February 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
care equipment garden lawn…
Catalogue of care equipment garden lawn….
May 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am
hpcwr
July 8th, 2007 at 7:36 am
[…] Blogger sued for criticising a farmer’s union […]
May 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
[…] Cooper, “Gag Me With a Grape”, L.A. Weekly, Feb. 8; Cooper blog entry and comments, Feb.
(via Romenesko). The UFW’s side of the underlying controversies is […]