This article is to follow up previous Sierra Times articles reporting on the banning of the Confederate flag by DuPont. See : http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/arsp100400.htm and http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/arsp100600.htm.

If you haven't done so yet, please visit http://www.dupont7.com/. It is touted as "a free speech populist website and is not affiliated with any organization or any group directly involved with E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. This website is not legally or financially associated with SCV [Sons of Confederate Veterans], SLRC [Southern Legal Resource Center, attorneys for plaintiff-employees] or any other group, organization or corporation."

To recap, on July 9, 2000, Jimmy Jones, a 30 year employee of DuPont, was told he was forbidden to wear anything or have on his person any items with southern emblems or the Confederate flag. Apparently, he was also ordered to take home a book containing information about his southern ancestors. Confederate flag or emblems on cars and delivery trucks have also been banned by DuPont. On September 28, 2000, the Union Grievance committee chairman, received a letter from the DuPont Nomex manufacturing Plant Manager, denying the Union grievance.

For three years, every Thursday, seven DuPont employees and other citizens have protested in front of the DuPont Spruance plant in Richmond, Virginia, where all of this has taken place.

Meanwhile, the Southern Legal Resource Center in North Carolina [hereinafter SLRC] (attorney Kirk Lyons) agreed to represent the aggrieved employees, the "Dupont 7". They are, for the record, Jimmy Jones, Kevin Chaplin, Bob Lewis, Marvin Oliver, Lynne Ritenour, David Rowlette and Steve Jackson. The website http://www.dupont7.com states these men "are moral and principled people as were their ancestors." These men have taken on the might of DuPont, a multinational corporation worth billions, because they believe they are being discriminated against for being Christian Confederate Southern-Americans. Indeed, the SLRC approached the EEOC, alleging discrimination based on race, religion and national origin, however, the EEOC refused to proceed on behalf of the employees.

So, on May 30, 2003, the Dupont 7 filed suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division [federal court], CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-469.

What follows next is incredible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Local counsel pressured by DuPont

The SLRC, by law, had to hire local counsel in Richmond and a civil rights attorney named Thomas Roberts agreed to help. DuPont put personal pressure on Mr. Roberts and, on September 17, 2003, without any notice to the SLRC or his clients, Mr. Roberts files a motion to withdraw as local counsel. The Court allowed him to withdraw and ordered the SLRC to find new local counsel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DuPont goes after the SLRC and undermines all efforts to find new local counsel

On October 16, 2003, the SLRC received DuPont's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The next day, Mr. Lyons received a letter from DuPont's counsel threatening sanctions against him, personally, if the lawsuit is not dismissed within 21 days. "Sanctions" are used to punish attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits; usually the attorney will have to pay the other side's legal bill. The 21 days passed and DuPont filed for sanctions. The website http://www.dupont7.com states: "One of DuPont's goals in filing sanctions is to effectively scare off any local attorney from helping the clients. For this DuPont's attorney's should be sanctioned! DuPont also hopes to have the case dismissed by default. After the sanctions threat it became impossible for Mr. Lyons to find local Richmond counsel. Some attorneys even laughed in fear of DuPont. DuPont makes it clear that they will sanction ANY attorney that signs on with the SLRC and comes against DuPont. The Court, realizing that a severe due process problem is looming, makes an attempt to get two different attorney's involved as local counsel. Both attorneys are afraid and refused."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Court bows to DuPont

On November 17, 2003, the Court took the "unprecedented step" of allowing Mr. Lyons to practice the case without local Richmond counsel. The judge is "obviously aware DuPont's attorneys are using forceful bullish tactics against the aggrieved employees' attorneys."

On November 24, 2003, Mr. Lyons responded to Dupont's motion for sanctions.

The very next day, the Court dismissed the case [obviously its order was pre-written and pre-decided]! The Court indicated it will grant a hearing on the sanctions against Mr. Lyons. On December 5, 2003, Mr. Lyons tried to rally, filing a motion for reconsideration on the motion to dismiss; incredibly the Court denied this motion as well!

On January 20, 2004, DuPont indicated it is seeking sanctions in the amount of $59,989.49 in fees and $2,240.25 in expenses! Hello! If this lawsuit is so "frivolous", why has DuPont expended nearly $61,000.00 to defend against it?! A hearing to determine the amount of sanctions has been scheduled for Friday, January 30, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. at the Federal courthouse in Richmond.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpts from Mr. Lyons' final response

"Plaintiffs truly felt they had been aggrieved and discriminated against by Defendants policy which directly targeted them as White, Christian (Save in the case of Plaintiff Turley) Confederate Southern-Americans. .... Plaintiffs harbor no ill will toward Defendant and, in fact, continue to be employed by Defendant (save for Plaintiff Oliver who is retired). They have presented evidence of the actions taken against them, the employment sponsored events in which they were not allowed to participate, and their efforts to resolve the situation directly with Defendant and the EEOC. Plaintiffs did not file suit for any improper purpose, but to rectify what they reasonably felt were violations of their civil rights."

* * *

"Attached to Plaintiffs Complaint were affidavits by each of the Plaintiffs, along with affidavits from other Confederate Southern-Americans, experts in the field, and historians on the culture, heritage and beliefs of Confederate Southern Americans. In its Motion Defendant attempts to characterize these affidavits as "wholly irrelevant", containing "no substantive factual assertions" relating to Plaintiffs claims. Motion at p. 2, 7-8. However, as should be abundantly clear, these affidavits were filed in support of Plaintiffs claim that Defendant discriminated against them on the basis of their national origin simply by informing the court that there is a body of people, apparently unknown to the court, who claim to be Confederate Southern-Americans.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") defines national origin discrimination broadly to include denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individuals, or his ancestors, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. 29 C.F.R. 1606.1. Plaintiffs affidavits provide evidence of ancestry and the cultural characteristics of Confederate Southern-Americans and are clearly relevant to Plaintiffs claim of national origin.

The Defendant also asserts that the affidavits are "replete with SCV dogma and theory". Motion at p. 2. Plaintiffs are members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans ("SCV"), the SCV is a non-profit organization made up of Confederate Southern Americans, and SCVs "dogma and theory, " on the history, ancestry, beliefs, and cultural characteristics of Confederate Southern-Americans supports Plaintiffs claims that they are entitled to national origin protection. Defendants summary dismissal and ridicule ("argument and propaganda ") of Plaintiffs affidavits is just one more example of their bigotry, discrimination and intolerance toward Confederate Southern-Americans."

* * *

"As set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant approved employee networks for many different social and cultural groups, but denied a network for Confederate Southern Americans. Complaint at ¶ 38. They were ordered not to display Confederate symbols on Dupont property including symbols on personal clothing, newspapers, pictures, photographs, and bumper stickers on their personal vehicles. Complaint at ¶ 39-44. They suffered humiliation, embarrassment, loss of esteem, and emotional distress because of Defendants actions. Complaint at ¶ 50. These injuries are real and arguably are sufficient to at least to allege a claim under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (unlawful to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment), emphasis added. In finding that Plaintiffs failed to allege an adverse employment action sufficient to state a claim, the Court focused on Plaintiffs assertions that they feared reprimand, loss of job, and employment opportunities. Memorandum Opinion dated November 25, 2002 at p. 8. The Court did not address the facts set forth above and whether they were sufficient to allege an adverse employment action."

* * *

"Plaintiffs further alleged that they advised Defendant that their ban on Confederate symbols discriminated against them on the basis of religion, attempted to educate Defendant about the significance of the symbols, and complained about their ban. First Amended Complaint, ¶ 40, 46-47. They alleged that Defendant could have accommodated their religious practices without disruption. Id. at ¶ 76. Construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, these factual allegations are arguably sufficient to show that Plaintiffs requested accommodation of their religious beliefs. Plaintiffs were not required to prove that they did so in their Complaint. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs Chaplin, Jones, and Coleman subsequently filed evidence of their written request for accommodation. See Exhibits D-1, E-1, and F-1 attached to Motion to Reconsider. This evidence, along with the affidavits attached to the Complaint, shows that Counsel had evidentiary support of Plaintiffs claims of religious discrimination ...(.)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Swastikas, Confederate decals and Pornography

Mr. Mike Mayberry, Dupont Spruance's Plant Manager, put out a memo to all employees "Defining R-E-S-P-E-C-T". It was specifically to address the Confederate flag and emblem issue. He states multinational corporate DuPont wants "a place of employment where dignity coincides with diversity, and people do not feel intimidated, threatened, harassed, or discriminated against." He states "[w]orkshops like "A Matter of Respect" (AMOR) can provide specific examples of offensive and disrespectful behavior." He states "DuPont Spruance will not tolerate harassment of any type, whether it is verbal, physical, written, or visual." From his memo:

"Q: What are examples of behavior that are inappropriate on the Spruance site?

Visual symbols or logos that may be offensive to others, even on your personal property, such as a swastika, a decal of the Confederate flag, or pornographic materials. "

DuPont is comparing the southern Confederate flag to a Nazi swastika or pornographic materials? This is like the pot calling the kettle black!

I won't get into specifics here, but the Civil War was more about State's rights than slavery and had nothing to do with Nazi Germany! The Dupont7.com website indicates that by comparing the Confederate flag to a swastika, "you [DuPont] have deliberately offended a very holy people. Thousands of Southern Hebrew men carried their Confederate Flags into battle and fought to their deaths."

Furthermore, have you ever seen DuPont's B-GLAD website http://www.dupontbglad.com/? B-GLAD stands for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered and Allied at DuPont. The Dupont7.com website states: "By its nature and behavior, we define it as a secret membership organization with far reaching, powerful political agendas within transnational DuPont corporation. Powerful homosexual organizations operate within all transnational corporations and may to some extent establish and dictate their corporate agenda policy. B-GLAD organization sells a B-GLAD jewelry pin for members to wear on their clothes. The B-GLAD homosexual rainbow flag is encouraged, embraced and welcomed on DuPont property and grounds. B-GLAD's telephone number is listed at DuPont's headquarters in Wilmington, DE. Apparently, homosexual lifestyle is encouraged by DuPont." So DuPont employee's can wear the B-GLAD pin and fly the Rainbow Flag, though this might be "OFFENSIVE" to moral Christian employees?

I followed some of the links from the B-GLAD website http://www.dupontbglad.com/Links/links.html and found this [warning, this may be offensive to you!]:

"I enjoy penetration as much as the next gal, but usually my girlfriend can only get two fingers, sometimes three, inside me. This is all well and good, but I am turned on by the thought of using a dildo. ..... I used a dildo on myself anally for the first time on that last masturbation with a full erection. Since then, I have masturbated and ejaculated ..... A few years ago during sex my partner entered my rectum with a little too much force and I reflexively clinched. When he withdrew there was lots of blood from my rectal area. Since then I have never been the same; I havent been a bottom since. .... The best I ever get out of him (after lots of cajoling) is for him to lick my sack while I spank the monkey. ..... licking just the base of your penis doesnt count, and sucking just the head doesnt count either. .... ball licking and other such delicate snack-like activities ... from full-fledged f*king and sucking to some occasional testicular nibbling."

Doesn't this look like pornography to you? And it's coming from DuPont's B-GLAD website!

More from Mr. Mayberry's memo to DuPont Spruance employees:

"Q: What about my first amendment rights to free speech?

DuPont Spruance recognizes each individual's right to have his or her own beliefs. However, as an employer, our goal is to eliminate any distractions and disruptions that can be created by certain workplace behaviors. While on company property, we expect all employees to comply with our policies regarding a respectful work environment. Failure to do so may result in developmental actions, up to and including discharge.

In other words, forget about your First Amendment rights. There's a new breed of multinational corporate philosophy afoot!

Q: What will happen to me if I have a bumper sticker on my car that is deemed offensive or inappropriate?

You will be asked to relocate your vehicle to an off site location or remove or cover the sticker while the automobile is on DuPont Spruance property.

* * *

"At DuPont Spruance, our interests are to improve work relationships and behaviors rather than to change people's values and beliefs."

As our work force has become more diverse, it is imperative to the success of our businesses to reinforce our expectations that all employees are treated with dignity and respect. One of the challenges that a diverse work force faces in learning to work together is to recognize and eliminate those symbols that are offensive and therefore are a distraction in our workplace. DuPont Spruance's management team wants to make it clear to everyone that the symbol of the Confederate flag is not appropriate in our workplace."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Multinational Corporate Agenda

Did you know DuPont had a hand in writing the UN "Global Compact"? http://www.dupont.com/corp/news/position/global_compact.html On October 1, 2003, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Anna, honored DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles O. Holliday, Jr. This article http://www.uscib.org/index.asp?DocumentID=2745 states: "Dupont was one of the first American companies to adhere to the UN's Global Compact, a voluntary initiative launched by Secretary General Annan in 1999 to secure private-sector support to advance international human rights." Of course, human rights includes the rights of bisexuals, gays, lesbians and the transgendered!

Do you know anything about the UN "Norms"? This website http://nonormsintheusa.tripod.com/ states: "On August 13, 2003, the UN Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights unanimously agreed to transmit to the UN Commission on Human Rights for consideration and adoption a compilation of "Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights." The UN Commission on Human Rights will review and approve the "Norms" in March, 2004. The draft "Norms," long under preparation by a Working Group of the Sub-Commission, comprise an array of company obligations with respect to human rights drawn from existing international human rights, labor and environmental standards. Their approval by the Sub-Commission is widely regarded as a first step towards UN regulation of multi-national companies. The draft "Norms" call for companies to be subject to periodic monitoring and verification of their activities by the UN. A commentary by the Working Group that devised the Norms calls for action to be taken against companies which fail to comply with them and proposes that the Commission on Human Rights consider establishing a group to receive information and take definitive action when businesses fail to comply."

Family.org http://www.family.org/cforum/topics/a0018815.cfm talks also about United Nations policies. It states: "Concerns have arisen about the United Nations policies with regard to family and religious issues. The growing influence of gay activists, left wing feminists, and organizations such as Planned Parenthood with their harmful effect upon families around the world and their unfailing antagonism toward religion is alarming. As UN delegates prepare language to be included in influential documents, it is important that pro-family groups have a voice. Some UN monitors are developing a strategy for combating this intentional, concerted assault on the family."

Indeed, as this Worldnetdaily article suggests http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33984 the UN is in a showdown with religion! It states: "Buoyed by growing political acceptance of homosexuals worldwide, a United Nations group promoting "gay" and lesbian rights met in New York to sharpen a multi-pronged strategy that includes a "showdown with religion." The meeting was sponsored by the U.N. Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees, known as UNGLOBE, a group officially recognized by the worldwide body in 1996. At a forum Monday, attended briefly by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, panel members singled out Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants as opponents, according to the New York-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Another panel member, Princeton University professor Anthony Appiah, wondered whether or not religion should be limited, as it poses a "challenge" to the homosexual agenda. .... Annan told panel members the world should become "much more tolerant and compassionate." "I think what is important is that we should stress those positive aspects in our society, the things that bring us together, and move away from discrimination and persecution," the secretary general said."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the foregoing reasons ....

I suggest to you there is a reason why DuPont is going after Confederate flag and emblems in the former capital of the Confederacy, Richmond, Virginia, and it has more to do with being a "Christian Southern-American"! The question is, what are YOU going to do about it?

I am told that the SLRC will be appealing the Court's decision. You can help the Southern Legal Resource Center. It's non-profit so your donation is tax deductable.

Southern Legal Resource Center P.O. Box 1235 Black Mountain, NC 28711 Email: slrc@slrc-csa.org Telephone: 828-669-5189

Next time you are in Richmond at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, stop by the protest in front of the DuPont Spruance plant located at 5401 Jefferson Davis Highway and support the Dupont 7!

You can voice your opinion to DuPont. Contact:

Mike Mayberry, Plant Manager 804-383-2698

Linda Derr, Labor Relation Manager & Chief Bargaining Agent 804-383-2346

You can ask the companies you do business with whether they know about the UN "Norms". According to http://nonormsintheusa.tripod.com/ : "You [being a United States company] will only be able to do business with (including purchasing from and selling to) contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, licensees, distributors, and natural or other legal persons who also follow the "Norms." Imagine that! The UN dictating to you who you can do business with! Further, you will have to ensure your contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, licensees, distributors, and any other natural or legal persons with whom you enter into any agreement are subject to monitoring under the "Norms"!"

There are vast changes afoot in the United States of America. If all of us do not actively work to stay informed and circumvent some of the stark, darker forces we will not have a country anymore! As the Dupont7.com website states: "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

To conclude, for the benefit of the Goliath, multinational corporate DuPont, and their attorneys, I, George Sands, believe in free speech. I am not affiliated with any organization or any group directly involved with E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Southern Legal Resource Center, or any other group, organization or corporation. And I shake my fist at you.