Who woudnt challenge this?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Who woudnt challenge this?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Who woudnt challenge this?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 12:38:59 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

So here it is, looking up some terms regarding another thread here stumbled across this gem:

29 USC § 652 - Definitions

Current through Pub. L. 113-21. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
For the purposes of this chapter—

(1) The term “Secretary” mean [1] the Secretary of Labor.

(2) The term “Commission” means the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission established under this chapter.

(3) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between a State and any place outside thereof, or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States (other than the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands), or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof.

(4) The term “person” means one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons.

(5) The term “employer” means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States (not including the United States Postal Service) or any State or political subdivision of a State.

Ok so far so good, so WTF Happened here:

(6) The term “employee” means an employee of an employer who is employed in a business of his employer which affects commerce.

Do we suppose that this is simply a mistake? Did dumb dubya do this? hardly! LOL

This is how you discover what the government wants to hide from you. Its the same in every country. Its being put up because it is so fucking in your face fraudulent and the only way you can change it is to take it to court and pay some attorney (another extortionist) 20 grand.

Again supporting the idea that anyone who is a citizen OR has an obligation to pay into the system should have FREE LEGAL SERVICES and all cases JURY heard period.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/31/2013 12:40:41 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 12:41:09 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

6 is right, and proper.

for the puroposes of 29 usc they dont mean barbershop employees, nor do they mean wal-mart greeters.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 12:53:03 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

so what is an employee and prove it, caveat: WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION

That is what a definition is intended to do. Give clear meaning that does not require construction.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 1:16:33 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

you prove it. someone who works for a company (not as an independent contractor) who engages in commerce.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 1:24:56 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

someone?

So then an employee is a someone, well I beg to differ, the definition clearly states that an employee is an EMPLOYEE.

How the hell did you dream up that it is a some"one"?

For all I know it might be a some"thing".

I want to probate this shit, not 20 parlor guesses.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 1:32:27 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

LOL, you would be laughed out of court, and probably jailed for frivolous suit.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 1:56:09 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, you would be laughed out of court, and probably jailed for frivolous suit.

so they completely and wrongfully use the language and all you can say is that I would be laughed at?

They are the asshats that used ridiculous circular logic by defining a word with the same word.

This forces it into a judicial construction if challenged, its why attorneys dance when you try to get straight answers from them on any fucking thing.

Now if it requires a judicial construction who do we think will win that round?

This is just one example of how this shit erodes and morphs until the we have a complete reconstruction of government that we no longer recognize.

The words employee are your democracys one shoe fits all for taxation purposes regardless of circumstance or status.

In other words there are other descriptions that more appropriately fit that are not under the tax umbrella for instance.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/31/2013 1:58:43 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 2:11:10 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

they dont wrongfully do it. you dont like the language tell your fuckin senators and congressmen to get a fuckin education, and fix the language. How could it be worded efficiently and unambiguously?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 2:29:27 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

You are probably right but in the end but after all it took to win, what practical difference will it make ?

All it would change and that's only maybe, are the exceptionally rare cases where the ruling hangs on the definition of employee.

I think there are other much more important laws on the hill, that are and aren't being passed or changed that should draw our attention..

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 7/31/2013 10:23:55 PM

MrBukani

Posts: 1920
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

You proveit.
No you proveit!
No you!
No you!!!

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 8/1/2013 5:56:32 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

(6) The term “employee” means an employee of an employer who is employed in a business of his employer which affects commerce.

Do we suppose that this is simply a mistake? Did dumb dubya do this? hardly! LOL

This is how you discover what the government wants to hide from you. Its the same in every country. Its being put up because it is so fucking in your face fraudulent and the only way you can change it is to take it to court and pay some attorney (another extortionist) 20 grand.

Again supporting the idea that anyone who is a citizen OR has an obligation to pay into the system should have FREE LEGAL SERVICES and all cases JURY heard period.

Not surprisingly, I have no clue what you're complaining about here.

The term “employee” means an employee Well, duh.

of an employer have to have that. Can't be an unemployed employee.

who is employed in a business of his employer which affects commerce. In other words, the company has to actually DO something. Make stuff, and hopefully sell it.

Evidently you feel that the above is wrong, and so wrong it's actionable. Mind sharing WHAT is wrong?

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 8/1/2013 6:43:39 AM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Don't you see the significance here?

I mean, hundreds of thousands lost their lives, or that of their parents, in various foreign endeavors, so obviously, no 'employee' legal concerns there.

The we have > 8.5 million jobs lost domestically, which, according to the OP is a good thing, because they are no longer caught up in that legal entrapment as envisioned by him. Sorry for the > 4.5 million people put out to the streets as result of no longer being employees and having their home stolen out from under them, but that is the price of 'freedom,' don't you know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I think there are other much more important laws on the hill, that are and aren't being passed or changed that should draw our attention..

Ya think?

I'm glad somebody's awake here.

OK, back to the TV now:

America's Got Pink Panties!

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: Who woudnt challenge this? - 8/1/2013 9:44:16 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

This is one I would probably pass on because the effect would be negligible. If you're looking to get people out of Obamacare, it is not likely to work. This does nothing to define or redefine taxpayer so it does nothing there either.

Writing to congress critters will also do no good. Most of them are not literate enough to fix this, only a handful actually deal with such things, along with a few ex-parte personell who probably write most of their "material". These would be the people who did not cheat their way through Harvard, or maybe even went to a good law school.

If you really want to work on something, start with the source of the problem - the media. Get it back to where they must operate in the public interest and that does NOT mean in their advertisers' best interests. Once they start doing some real reporting on what those scumbags are actually doing, shit might start to happen.

T^T

(in reply to Edwynn)

Profile

Post #: 13