Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 70,615
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Full Story
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64638 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>What in the hell are you talking about? Go back to your own post No. 64613. You used the reply function. Everything you asked for is contained therein.
I just checked the Allah thread. Although you unethical slime excuse for a person had my post deleted it's still in the cache for the site. Here it is again (note the update on the date):
ericfromchi
Since: Dec 13
196
Arlington Heights, IL
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#197551Tuesday Dec 24
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Greetings dear HughBe, long time! Hope you are well.
Good question indeed.
As long as the rest of the baggage is not excessive, s/he should not pay for a piece of essential medical equipment to combat a life-threatening disease.
Hope it helps.
All the best for the Season to you and your loved ones.
Alex
Example
There are no weight limits or overweight charges for personal wheelchairs, mobility aids and medical equipment but please check our special assistance information for some rules and requirements.
http://www.britishairways.com/en-lb/informati ...
IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SO DISHONEST AS TO HAVE MY POST DELETED, YOU HAD BETTER HAVE THEM DELETE THE CACHE TOO. WHEN YOU DON'T, MY PRIOR POST IS STILL ACCESSIBLE.
You have now shown your true colors. When you get caught, you have the prior post deleted. Then you challenge people to show the post knowing you had it deleted. You've done it twice now to me. But you have forgotten that the original post is still contained in replies. And you have forgotten that the cache is still available. You are scum.
I expected you to renege on your promise. I didn't expect you to go to such lengths of dishonesty.
I do not blame the Christians or the Jamaicans for your lack of ethics and honesty. It's all on your shoulders.
OF, I need to talk to intelligence and integrity now.

Bi.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64639 Dec 26, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Oiled your butt?
Bend, it's the holidays, Monny.
I want to sodomize you, Cruff.
(winks)
I am fully aware of that, it is my magnetism. Please try and control your strong unnatural desires.

Much love, Mon

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#64640 Dec 26, 2013
I am going out. Bye. Later.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64641 Dec 26, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
OF, I need to talk to intelligence and integrity now.
Bi.
Don't look in the mirror then.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64642 Dec 26, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
I am going out. Bye. Later.
Later
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64643 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is. Supreme Court said so in Citizens United v. FEC.
So let's stop playing semantics and give us an example of a privilege accorded only to corporations.
You are a real fucking idiot.
The ruling is summarized as people acting through corporations, has nothing to do with corporations being citzens.
If you look at the definition of a citzen that will shed some light on the discussion.

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), the Court pointed out that “it was the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned” The Court went on to say that “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision.” Paul at 181. The Court found that a “corporation” was not a “citizen” within the meaning of the PIC4, but rather a grant of special privileges by the home state. So it was established early on that while the protection afforded by the Commerce Clause was wide-reaching insofar as it applies to corporations and other entities as well as individuals, the PIC4 protection would extend only to individual persons.
nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/C...

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64644 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a real fucking idiot.
The ruling is summarized as people acting through corporations, has nothing to do with corporations being citzens.
If you look at the definition of a citzen that will shed some light on the discussion.
In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), the Court pointed out that “it was the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned” The Court went on to say that “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision.” Paul at 181. The Court found that a “corporation” was not a “citizen” within the meaning of the PIC4, but rather a grant of special privileges by the home state. So it was established early on that while the protection afforded by the Commerce Clause was wide-reaching insofar as it applies to corporations and other entities as well as individuals, the PIC4 protection would extend only to individual persons.
nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/C...
You know, the Supreme Court has the power to change it's mind. Further, it appears that the current court believes that as far as the First Amendment is concerned - and we are talking about the First Amendment and not the Commerce Clause - that corporations are protected by the First Amendment.

Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64645 Dec 26, 2013
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).

If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64646 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is public relations.
rabbee: just like i said," not a lot". just a matter of who has the better, fantasy version of themselves.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64647 Dec 26, 2013
And, ATF, the Supreme Court directly overruled the finding in Paul v. VA in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64648 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).
If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.
Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64649 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>You know, the Supreme Court has the power to change it's mind. Further, it appears that the current court believes that as far as the First Amendment is concerned - and we are talking about the First Amendment and not the Commerce Clause - that corporations are protected by the First Amendment.
Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
What a stupid question, a corporation has a privilege to operate as an entity within the host state by statute.
And that privilege can be revoked.
Its existence is a privilege.
A citizen can not operate as a proprietorship without having his personal assets amenable to suit.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64650 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
By the way ATF (wow deja vu), your argument that the government bestowing a power upon someone makes that person's actions governmental has been shot down again and again by the courts. One instance I remember from law school is where someone tried to argue that repos had to accord the debtor due process was summarily shot down by the 9th Circuit. Court spelled out the difference between State Action and Private Action.
Adams v. Southern California First National Bank, 492 F.2d 324 (1974).
Read this http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/56e69c29-514f-...
The decision just killed the law professors because they had used the District Court decision for our appellate moot court case.
Why would a company have to afford due process to an individual that they were in contract with and that did not hold title/ownership to the property?

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64652 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations wouldn't exist if governments didn't exist.
rabbee: just who are you trying to fool with that illusion - yourself or me? giving them a fancy name, so you can tax them does not mean they did not pre-exist. in fact governments try to thwart corporations, and companies, from becoming more powerful than they. ever hear, of the anti-trust laws?

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64653 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid question, a corporation has a privilege to operate as an entity within the host state by statute.
And that privilege can be revoked.
Its existence is a privilege.
A citizen can not operate as a proprietorship without having his personal assets amenable to suit.
And a corporation cannot operate without having its personal assets amenable to suit. Using your own statement previously, it is the shareholders that enjoy the personal asset protection and not the corporation. The corporation is the same as anyone else. Its assets are amenable to suit, to use your phrase. No different than anyone else.

Now tell me how a corporation can have the ability to operate revoked except by failure to renew its charter/articles. And not renewing is an act of its owners not the government.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64654 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a company have to afford due process to an individual that they were in contract with and that did not hold title/ownership to the property?
See, you are starting to understand the difference between government action and private action. Very good! Companies have the luxury that you speak of. Governments do not. They are required to give due process no matter what.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64655 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
And, ATF, the Supreme Court directly overruled the finding in Paul v. VA in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
That ruling only had to do with insurance contracts being treated under the interstate commerce clause.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64656 Dec 26, 2013
And with that, I am satisfied that you have spelled out why A&E isn't required to give its employees first amendment rights. It's just as you say. The company doesn't have to afford constitutional protections to one in contract with the company and has not right to their job outside of the contract.
\
And remember, A&E is not a corporation.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64657 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).
If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.
rabbee: if only their employees, would apply for citizenship. they would not have this, unnatural personal problem. so the nazi regime, will think of them as people too. at least fascists, don't discriminate.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64658 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>See, you are starting to understand the difference between government action and private action. Very good! Companies have the luxury that you speak of. Governments do not. They are required to give due process no matter what.
Not always, back in the day companies would have to do an action in replevin to retrieve goods that weren't paid for.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gila Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) Nov 21 savant 40
Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Nov 7 Realist 615
Hearing set for teen who allegedly shot father ... (Jan '11) Oct 29 Circe 6
Mimbres area Oct '14 Wherda 2
Grant County Corruption (Apr '10) Oct '14 silly12 6
A Possible Situation? Oct '14 yankeedudell 3
Dr. Twana Sparks (Dec '09) Oct '14 yankeedudell 47
Gila Dating
Find my Match

Gila People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Gila News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Gila

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:39 pm PST

NBC Sports 8:39PM
Bruce Arians says Cardinals needed a bigger back in backfield
NBC Sports11:36 AM
No practice for Larry Fitzgerald on Wednesday
NBC Sports 4:37 PM
Cardinals look to revive offense against Falcons - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 9:17 PM
Breaking Down San Diego's Game Plan vs. Baltimore
Bleacher Report 4:15 AM
Philip Rivers and Keenan Allen Must Get on Same Page for Playoff Push