Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/17/2011 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 88-USE OF FOREIGN LAW
8:07:26 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 88, "An Act prohibiting a court, arbitrator, mediator,
administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a
law, rule, or provision of an agreement that violates an
individual's right under the Constitution of the State of Alaska
or the United States Constitution."
8:07:41 AM
KAREN SAWYER, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 88 on behalf of Representative Gatto,
sponsor. She said the intent of HB 88 is to prevent a court or
other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law in
Alaska. Ms. Sawyer stated that the U.S. has "unique values of
liberty," which do not exist in foreign legal systems, and
foreign laws are increasingly finding their way in to U.S. court
cases, particularly in the area of family law involving divorce
and child custody. She noted that included in the committee
packet is a document showing the types of foreign law in various
countries.
MS. SAWYER said HB 88 would provide a statutory framework to
prohibit constitutionally objectionable foreign laws and legal
systems from finding their way into the state judicial system.
She said one example of transnational law is shari'a, which is
Islamic law that is applied as the law of the land in many
countries around the world. She noted that in the committee
packet is a handout listing the various legal systems of
countries around the world. Ms. Sawyer said many Muslim
countries apply shari'a as the law of the land in specific legal
areas such as family law and inheritance. She indicated that a
copy of "Representative Civil Legal Cases Involving shari'a
Law," by the American Public Policy Alliance, would be made
available to committee members.
8:10:16 AM
MS. SAWYER stated that shari'a is offensive to U.S. and Alaska
constitutional law, because it criminalizes [the exercise of
freedom of religion] and blasphemy against Islam, Mohammed, and
shari'a, and violates principles of due process and equal
protection by discriminating against non-Muslims and women. She
said almost all Muslim countries - including Egypt, Jordan,
Afghanistan, and Iraq - have a shari'a supremacy clause, which
"effectively does not allow any secular law to violate shari'a's
fundamental principles of Islamic supremacy."
MS. SAWYER said the intent of HB 88 is neither to inhibit
freedom of religion nor to isolate shari'a. She explained that
she brought up the topic of shari'a because "its religion and
civil law is linked" and "it is the foremost foreign law that is
slowly impacting our legal system in the U.S." She concluded as
follows:
Alaska, like other states, recognizes a growing need
to emphasize the fact that our state and U.S.
constitutions are the fundamental basis for civil law
for everyone in our country. To those who are
accustomed to their religion and their civil laws
being inextricably connected, we must clarify that all
individual rights are guaranteed and protected under
our constitutions.
8:12:40 AM
CHAIR LYNN, regarding the law of the land, asked if precedent
from court cases in other countries could be used in U.S. court
cases.
MS. SAWYER said she cannot answer that question.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that he would not want foreign cases cited
in a U.S. court.
8:15:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN ventured that U.S. law was most likely
originally based on foreign law, and he questioned the purpose
of the proposed legislation.
8:16:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 88, related that there were many cultures represented in
his childhood neighborhood, but the law of the foreign countries
from which those neighbors originally hailed was never used in
U.S. courts. He offered his understanding that typically when
people come to the U.S. from the Middle East they establish
their own laws. He said HB 88 would not allow that to happen.
He said a majority in a state may decide that it wants to pass
state laws that are in violation of the [U.S.] Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if that is something that is
happening in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that there are
large populations of Filipino Americans in Kodiak, but specified
that he is not accusing them of anything. He clarified that HB
88 is a preventative measure for the state.
MS. SAWYER added that the understanding of the Department of Law
(DOL) and the family courts is that Alaska has not had foreign
law invoked into any of its cases. She said there is a larger
group of foreign nationals growing in Anchorage. She said the
intent of the bill is to preempt any future court cases [related
to the issue of foreign law].
8:20:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how HB 88 would relate to tribal law.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related that in Canada it is a timely
process to get permission to develop resources, because
permission must be obtained from each group within the First
Nations people.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that he wants to know the possible
interaction between Alaska tribal law and HB 88.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he cannot make that determination
"because they were here first."
8:22:44 AM
MS. SAWYER, in response to Representative P. Wilson, explained
that the handout in the committee packet entitled "American Laws
for American Courts (ALAC)" contains frequently asked questions,
which originate from the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA).
In response to a follow-up question, she said both Tennessee and
Louisiana have enacted statute similar to what is being proposed
in HB 88. She said Oklahoma amended its state constitution and
a lawsuit was filed by an Islamic American group. The judge has
put a hold on the enactment of that constitutional amendment.
She said, "That was a real shock to a lot of states."
8:24:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that there is no language to
prevent a judge from invoking foreign law in his/her decision.
He suggested a business contract be utilized.
MS. SAWYER said although the sponsor recognizes that there are
businesses that may do business that invokes some type of
foreign law, HB 88 would focus on the protection of individuals'
rights. She said the sponsor is particularly concerned because
there have been a lot of cases in which shari'a has been invoked
in relation to children, divorce, and women's rights.
8:26:59 AM
DAVID YERUSHALMI, General Counsel, Center for Security Policy,
stated that HB 88 is similar to the Uniform American Laws for
American Courts Act, which was drafted by his office and was
passed in modified form by the State of Louisiana. He indicated
that other states are also using various forms of that
legislation. He said typically this type of legislation deals
with problems that arise in a global environment, where
individuals and businesses are far more likely to come in
contact with foreign jurisdictions and foreign laws. He said
the application of foreign law judgment and jurisdiction in
state court is far more likely to occur today. He said in the
matter at hand foreign law clearly refers to law that is outside
the territory of the U.S.
MR. YERUSHALMI listed the following three ways that foreign law
insinuates itself in state court matters: when foreign judgment
is sought to grant comity; in matters related to choice of law;
and in matters related to jurisdiction or venue questions. He
offered examples of each.
8:33:07 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI stated that the Uniform American Laws for
American Courts Act deals with all three instances, but HB 88
deals only with choice of law and choice of venue. He
paraphrased language from HB 88, beginning on page 1, line 12,
to page 2, line 1, which read as follows:
Sec. 09.68.140. Foreign law prohibited.
(a) A court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative
agency, or enforcement agency may not apply a foreign
law if application of the foreign law would violate an
individual's right guaranteed by the Constitution of
the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.
MR. YERUSHALMI set up a hypothetical situation in which an
Alaskan company has a business contract with a Chinese company,
and in the contract there is a choice of law provision, which
states that any disputes must be determined by Chinese law. He
said in general Chinese law does not provide for all the
fundamental constitutional liberties that Alaskan law does. He
continued:
But that will not allow the Alaskan to avoid that
provision. The only way the Alaskan could avoid the
provision and have Chinese law apply is if in that
particular case, that particular dispute, the Chinese
law at issue would [violate] his fundamental
constitutional liberties.
MR. YERUSHALMI said the question of freedom of contract has been
raised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which
argued that a person should have the right to waive his/her
constitutional liberties at any time, but especially in a
business context. He said this is true, but not always. He
said the federal government and all states abide by a rule,
under which if two parties enter into a contract that would
violate the public policy of the state, the contract is void and
unenforceable. He said in order to determine whether parties
entering into a contract can waive a fundamental right, it is
necessary to consider the analysis of the fundamental right
jurisprudence. Mr. Yerushalmi noted that China and most of
Continental Europe do not apply jury trials. He said that if a
contract [between an Alaskan company and a company in a country
without jury trials] made clear that a jury trial was waived,
then the foreign law, even without jury trial provision, would
be sustained within the Alaskan court.
MR. YERUSHALMI then offered a hypothetical situation in which a
non-Muslim woman enters into a business contract with a company
in Saudi Arabia, with a provision in the contract that states
that Saudi laws apply. In the event of litigation, as a woman
her testimony would be worth only half of any man's, and as a
non-Muslim, her testimony would be discounted almost entirely.
He said that is a violation of both equal protection and due
process, and there is no jurisprudence in Alaska or the federal
courts to allow a party to waive those two fundamental
constitutional issues in the context where it was not known and
was non-consensual.
MR. YERUSHALMI offered a third example, in which an American
woman, while in Saudi Arabia, sustained an injury diving into a
shallow end of a swimming pool that was not clearly marked. She
ended up in a hospital in Massachusetts, which was not her home
state, and she filed a law suit. He said the most convenient
forum for litigation would have been Saudi Arabia, but the court
in the U.S. did not dismiss the case, because of the woman's
prospects of going to court in Saudi Arabia as a non-Muslim
female.
8:40:08 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI talked about laws in other countries that may
change after a contract has been signed and the affect that
being a non-national can have in carrying forth litigation in a
foreign country. Under HB 88, he said, an Alaskan in that
circumstance would be protected. Without HB 88, he said, it
would be left up to the courts, which would apply the common law
rule that if the foreign law or jurisdiction violates
fundamental public policy, the court will consider [the
contract] void. He said what "our law" does is answers a
specific request by the Alaska court, which is that the first
place to look when determining state public policy is to the
constitution and to the legislature.
8:44:32 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI directed attention to a letter from ACLU of
Alaska, dated 3/15/11, addressed to Chair Lynn and Vice Chair
Keller. He noted that nowhere in the letter does ACLU of Alaska
support the proposition that the legislature does not have the
authority to provide public policy, and he posited that that is
because the legislature has the authority. He offered several
examples in which the federal government and the State of Alaska
have disallowed waivers in employee contracts that took away
state and federal freedoms and protections.
8:48:12 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI asked ACLU and those who opposed HB 88 to
consider that in cases that are not clear, where the legislature
has not drawn a clear line around public policy regarding human
rights, the court tends to reach disparate opinions. He said HB
88 is a clear distinction by the legislature that the State of
Alaska considers fundamental constitutional liberties "public
policy red lines." He concluded that the proposed legislation
makes clear that if a person is going to violate those
liberties, he/she must do so "in a way that the jurisprudence
under that right recognizes the waiver." He offered to answer
questions.
8:53:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if HB 88 would prohibit courts from using
precedence from foreign case law.
MR. YERUSHALMI answered that HB 88 deals with applying foreign
law in the context of a specific dispute. He said if the Alaska
Supreme Court has to determine what the law of Alaska is, it
would first look to the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
then to statute, common law, and federal jurisprudence relevant
to the issue. He said the only time the Alaska Supreme Court
would consider foreign law would be in the context of common law
doctrine. He said the court could also consider admiralty law
and the law of war. He stated, "There are plenty of legitimate
occasions, in which foreign law informs what Alaskan law will
be; but once the court ... has been informed about what Alaskan
law is, it becomes Alaskan law." He said HB 88 does not address
the question of whether the Alaska Supreme Court could look to
English common law or French Code, for example; that is a
broader issue than HB 88. In response to a follow-up question,
he confirmed that that could be the subject for a separate bill.
He added that that is a problem that would more typically rise
at the federal level - in the U.S. Supreme Court. He offered an
example.
8:56:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the bill would aid U.S.
corporations in their litigation with foreign contracts and
foreign countries in leases that have been negotiated. He
offered his understanding that HB 88 is a little broader than
the committee had previously been told.
MR. YERUSHALMI confirmed that HB 88 would "level the playing
field" for Alaskan companies. He described a situation in which
a foreign country changed from abiding by laws agreeable to the
Alaskan company doing business with a business in that country
to a new regime that was not agreeable to the Alaskan company.
He said that without HB 88, the Alaskan company would have to
ask the Alaska court to void any provision requiring that
company to do litigation in the foreign country and to allow
litigation to take place in Alaska, arguing that under the
country's new regime, basic rights and liberties would not be
upheld. Mr. Yerushalmi said HB 88 would provide guidance to the
court.
9:01:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the testimony is showing that the
proposed bill would be a lot broader, because it would address
corporate rights, not just individual rights.
9:02:37 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI, in response to questions from Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that he is not licensed to practice law in
Alaska, and talked about his preparation for the hearing on HB
88. He clarified that the aforementioned Uniform American Laws
for American Courts Act was not promulgated by the Uniform Law
Commission. He reiterated that the main distinction between the
Uniform American Laws for American Courts Act adopted by some
states and HB 88 is that the latter does not have a provision
for comity. He said he does not know of any other legislation
exactly like HB 88; however, he stated that the substantive
provisions related to choice of law and jurisdiction questions
are similar to the Uniform American Laws for American Courts Act
and other states' legislation. He clarified that a certain
amendment to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma sought to
prevent any court from applying international law or shari'a,
but that the court held that identifying a specific religious
law without clearly excising the religious aspect would violate
the First Amendment. He said HB 88 is not "a blanket
prohibition against international law," but is "a very specific
and focused treatment of when that foreign law, if applicable in
a specific case, would violate the fundamental state
constitutional liberties that have not been weighed." He said
HB 88 would be upheld on a First Amendment challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Yerushalmi to provide the
citation for "that case."
9:08:49 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI, in response to a question from Representative
Johansen, said both Tennessee and Louisiana built into their
legislation a "business entity exception." He further relayed
that since both Tennessee and Louisiana adopted their statutes
within the last year, it is far too early for anything to have
happened as a result.
9:13:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how HB 88 would affect Native
Alaskans.
MR. YERUSHALMI answered that any existing treaties would trump
the statute. Furthermore, he said to the extent that tribal law
has been adopted in conjunction with state law, it would not be
considered foreign law. He proffered that to the extent that a
tribal law could still be considered foreign law under HB 88,
the simple solution would be to make an exemption by specifying
in the bill that tribal law would not be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mr. Yerushalmi if he is familiar
with the status of Alaska Native tribes as compared to those
tribes in the Lower 48. He ventured that there are differences.
MR. YERUSHALMI reiterated that the easy solution would be the
aforementioned exemption. He added that a more pointed solution
would be to determine whether a specific treaty provides for the
provisions for the treatment of federal tribal law in a given
sovereign way. If it does, he said, that would trump HB 88.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said although he appreciates Mr.
Yerushalmi's suggestion for an easy solution, he guarantees that
the power, effectiveness, and might of the tribes in Alaska
differ from those in the Lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he thinks the presence of hotels and
casinos in the Lower 48 established by tribes is a sign of the
strong independence of those tribes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN ventured that the insertion of exemption
language may not be as easy to accomplish for tribes in Alaska.
He cautioned the committee to be careful when considering
exclusions for tribes. Echoing Representative Seaton's prior
remark that the bill's focus is larger than it first appears, he
said he wants to understand the far-reaching implications [of HB
88].
9:21:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN questioned what would happen if one of Alaska's
Native corporations entered into a contract with a foreign
entity and there was an attempt by the legislature to exclude
that corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that Saxman [adjacent to
Ketchikan] has its own city, corporation, and tribe, and it is
difficult to get all three in agreement. He clarified that
saying that the corporation would not be affected would not
alleviate the concern regarding the tribe.
9:25:09 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI, in response to a question from Representative
Keller, said the problem with including corporate waivers is
that doing so would put mom and pop operations at risk. He said
a provision could be added to allow any corporation or
individual who enters into an agreement to "explicitly waive the
operation of this statute." He said he does not think that is
necessary, because of the language of the bill, and particularly
of the Uniform American Laws for American Courts Act, which is
"dependent upon the specific existing jurisprudence of the right
being infirmed." He offered examples. He said legislation
tends to address a given problem in a focused way, and then the
courts develop common law under statute that is continent with
Alaska jurisprudence.
9:29:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG ventured that the core reason Mr.
Yerushalmi is urging the passage of HB 88 is that apparently the
Alaska Supreme Court has said the Constitution of the State of
Alaska and the Alaska State Legislature determine public policy,
and because the legislature has not defined public policy in
this area, there is a lack of guidance to the courts.
MR. YERUSHALMI responded that that is a fair summary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that that is
not what the courts say. He cited AS 01.10.010, which read as
follows:
Sec. 01.10.010. Applicability of common law.
So much of the common law not inconsistent with the
Constitution of the State of Alaska or the
Constitution of the United States or with any law
passed by the legislature of the State of Alaska is
the rule of decision in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said common law states look to judge-
made law, and the courts in Alaska have many times enunciated
the common law. He said Guin v. Ha is a seminal case, which
provides that the courts will look at the rule of law that is
the most reasonable public policy. He expressed concern that HB
88 could have exactly the opposite consequence by cutting
against the long-standing public policy of Alaska.
9:34:45 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI said he is familiar with the case and statute to
which Representative Gruenberg referred, but said he disagrees
with Representative Gruenberg. He said it is not the case that
states which use code law, such as California and New York, do
not apply common law. Even Louisiana, which follows Napoleonic
code, also has a body of law that its judges have created by
interpreting. He said by searching for the words "void" and
"public policy" it is possible to find dozens of Alaska Supreme
Court cases in which the court voids contractual provisions
entered into by two parties. He cited Dillingham v. CH2M Hill
Northwest 873 p2nd 1271, a case which quotes AS 45.45.900, which
read as follows:
Sec. 45.45.900. Indemnification agreements against
public policy.
A provision, clause, covenant, or agreement contained
in, collateral to, or affecting a construction
contract that purports to indemnify the promisee
against liability for damages for (1) death or bodily
injury to persons, (2) injury to property, (3) design
defects, or (4) other loss, damage or expense arising
under (1), (2), or (3) of this section from the sole
negligence or wilful misconduct of the promisee or the
promisee's agents, servants, or independent
contractors who are directly responsible to the
promisee, is against public policy and is void and
unenforceable; however, this provision does not affect
the validity of an insurance contract workers'
compensation, or agreement issued by an insurer
subject to the provisions of AS 21, or a provision,
clause, covenant, or agreement of indemnification
respecting the handling, containment, or cleanup of
oil or hazardous substances as defined in AS 46.
MR. YERUSHALMI said AS 45.45.900 tells the court that even
though there is freedom of contract, an individual's liability
for negligent acts cannot be voided.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that statute is not on point,
because factual situations are being discussed, not the
construction of Alaska laws of the past.
9:38:48 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI responded that he does not agree. He opined that
there is no distinction between the two, other than the subject
matter.
9:40:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is confused because the courts
said rights cannot be waived, but the proposal being made here
is that waivers of specific portions of law are fine. He opined
that the big problem is that there is unresolved tension
regarding tribal law in Alaska. He said tribal authority is
sometimes challenged by the state on the issue of children. He
asked Mr. Yerushalmi if excluding tribal law would mean that
tribal law has precedence over Alaska statute. In response to
Representative Keller, he explained that his question is in
response to testimony that suggested an amendment to the bill.
9:44:55 AM
MR. YERUSHALMI, regarding the issue of tribal authority,
referred to the definition of "foreign law" on page 2, lines 23-
25, of HB 88, which read as follows:
(f) In this section, "foreign law" means a
law, rule, or legal code or system established and
used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the
United States and the territories of the United
States.
MR. YERUSHALMI said, "So, by definition Indian law is not
touched by the statute." In response to Representative Seaton's
comment regarding waivers, explained that he had brought up a
possible amendment to HB 88, but had said it was not necessary
because rights that are being protected by HB 88 have a clear
jurisprudence under both federal and Alaska law. Therefore,
whether or not a party can waive is included in the
jurisprudence of that particular liberty.
9:47:05 AM
DAVID HECKERT, Volunteer, Stop Islamization of America,
testified in support of HB 88. He said he is a 30-year veteran
of the U.S. Army, and he listed the names of several Middle
Eastern countries in which he worked within the Army as a civil
affairs officer with the local populations, public officials,
and international organizations. He relayed that he also worked
with the Office of Military Cooperation in the U.S. Embassy in
Egypt for 3.5 years. He talked about his experience interacting
with other cultures and working with the governmental, legal,
and commercial systems in those countries.
MR. HECKERT opined, "The enshrining of our rights in the
Constitution and ensuring our freedom through the rule of law is
by far the best system for government in the world." He said he
has seen a disregard for citizens' rights in favor of specific
agendas based on legal or governmental concepts from foreign
countries and international institutions. He said members of
"our supreme court" admit that they look to international law
for guidance on issues, and administrative agencies continue to
confiscate property and assess fines without any proper regress
for the victims to their elected officials.
MR. HECKERT said HB 88 would protect citizens from the
encroachment of foreign law into the legal system. He said one
aspect of foreign law that HB 88 would be especially effective
in deterring is Islamic shari'a law. He posited that there is a
reluctance to admit that "we" are at war with a large segment of
the Islamic community, which "seeks to impose the political,
legal, and cultural aspects of Islam on our citizens." He
offered some examples.
9:51:20 AM
JEFFREY MITTMAN, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 88. He stated that HB 88
is problematic in terms of business law, because it would
interfere with contractual issues. Referring to a point made in
the sponsor statement that one goal of HB 88 is to prevent the
imposition of shari'a law, Mr. Mittman stated that the U.S.
Constitution already governs federal and state courts and
prevents the imposition of those courts of any religious law.
He opined that the bill, as drafted, is over broad and
fundamentally unnecessary. In response to a question from Chair
Lynn, he confirmed that the written information from ACLU,
included in the committee packet, goes into further detail on
these points. He said ACLU is not aware of any instance where a
court has imposed shari'a law, and he said he thinks that is an
issue that should be addressed.
9:55:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like the bill sponsor to
outline how HB 88 relates to international conventions.
9:55:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Ms. Sawyer provide a
copy of all legal opinions that relate to this subject.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that in-depth discussion of the legal
aspect of the bill should be taken up in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
9:57:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that those in Native corporations
and tribes are U.S. citizens and are subject to U.S. law. He
stated that the proposed legislation would give the courts some
boundaries.
10:00:17 AM
[HB 88 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0088A.PDF |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 02 HB 88 Sponsor Statement 3-2-2011.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 03 Country Legal Systems 2011 HB 88.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 04 Letter SUPPORT Wood HB88 032011.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 05 Letter OPPOSE HB 88 ACLU Review of Legal Issues 2011 03 15.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 06 HB 88 Center for Security Policy.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 07 HB 88 David Yerushalmi Law professional memberships.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 08 HB 88 David Yerushalmi Law.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 09 HB 88 ALAC FAQ 03-14-11.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 10 HB 88 Legal Memo Bailey 3-15-11.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 11 HB 88 Public Policy Alliance-Sharia Law.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 12 HB088-LAW-CIV-03-13-11.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |
| 13 Letter SUPPORT Madar HB88 031011.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 88 |