The 41st Amendment handwritten
FCC
Mobile Phone and Internet Service Communications Benefits
Funding
Source and Appropriations
Investigative
Blog:
Veterans
Travel Reimbursement Explained:
5
USC and the Government and Labor Union Agreement was written in
Stone, so to speak, wherefore, Veterans Employees are to receive
Travel Reimbursement and Lounging and Veterans are to receive 50%
what the Veterans Employees receive. Wherefore, Veterans did not
receive Travel Reimbursement or lounging – This nullifies or voids
the Government and Union Agreement.
Wherefore
Labor is defined as Work, Wherefore, Union is defined as Unification
opposed to separation. Wherefore, Marriage is unconstitutional,
wherefore this is a Union.
Citations:
- Declaration of Independence
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The
Right to work is the right to eat, rather in or no in a Union.
Wherefore,
to Labor is to Work, Wherefore a Labor Union – with the
understanding of Unions and the purpose of Unions to Procreate and
the act of procreation is to go into Labor.
The
right to work extends the right to eat to both person in Union and
not in Union and with the understanding Labor Unions and the Right to
sexual orientation.
Wherefore,
sexual orientation is not a synonymous to Asexuality. Wherefore,
sexual Orientation is not a question of Sexual gender v. Asexuality.
Wherefore,
regardless rather one is in a Union or not is the question at hand.
The
right to work is the right to eat rather in a Labor Union or no in a
Labor Union.
The
Right to work law simple address the fact that everyone has to right
to eat, regardless in a union or not in labor Union. Wherefore, in
simplistic terms, am single person has the same right to eat as those
who are in Labor Unions and understand the distinctions between Union
and Marriage, wherefore, marriage is unconstitutional but to be
single and not in a Unions is not unconstitutional.
The
right to work passes all constitutionality tests. Wherefore, the
constitutionality test in simplicity terms, if something determined
to be constitutional makes a Constitutional decree unconstitutional,
it cannot be deemed to be constitutional.
Citation:
The
Florida Baker Act v. Due Process, The Baker Act cannot be an end run
due process of the law, wherefore, Baker Act is clearly
unconstitutional.
A
Labor Union in disguise and is merely an act of extortion, is not
only unconstitutional, but a clear intent to extort. Why?
The
U.S.C.U.G. and the Promise to all who obey the law is;
Life,
Liberty and Justice – and the Constitution is to protect, the
People, the Production Process and Property.
Wherefore,
the regulatory institution under this Union and the Constitution of
this Union is the Department of Labor and its execution is the
Department of Defense.
Wherefore,
what is being billed as a Labor Union is anti-Labor and wherefore in
is Anti-Life.
Funding
Sources: Mobile, INC + Microsoft, INC – Subsidiary CenturyLink,
INC + BET Internet Television
Mobile:
Mobile, INC
- Mobile computing, a generic term describing one's ability to use technology in mobile environments
- Mobile device, such as a smartphone, tablet, or computer designed for mobile computing
- Mobile game, a video game played on a mobile phone, smartphone, PDA or handheld computer
- Mobile network operator, a company which provides mobile phone network access and services
- Mobile operating system, the various underlying systems to power and run phones
- Mobile radio, wireless communications systems and devices which are based on radio frequencies
- Mobile station, user equipment and software needed for communication with a wireless telephone network
- Mobile Web, the World Wide Web as accessed from mobile devices using Mobile Web Browser
- Mobile TV, TV services viewed via a mobile device
Microsoft –
CenturyLink: ISP
Bancorp
Bank - YouTube
BET
Internet Television
Current
Management Oversight: Non Verified Nonprofit Entity:
Appropriations
Cancelled
Misappropriated
Funding and Access Uses:
Basis
for qualifications – Low Income – Unsubstantiated Due to Union
Wide Financial Crisis
- FDIC Insolvency
| FDIC 1060, INC. | P92000015101 | INACT |
| FDIC 1609, INC. | P92000015232 | INACT |
| FDIC 7171, INC. | P92000015095 | INACT |
Updated
to the Right to Fair
Access of Communications
Need
for
Union wide Security
Requirement
The
Need for Union Wide
Inclusion of the People – In Defense of our Union
The
2nd
Amendment
The
Second Amendment of
the United States Constitution reads: "A well-regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
“Are
you for me or against me?”
- Operation Overstock – Lack of Currency + Overstock or Property + Inability of Exchanges
- The 41st Amendment – Executive Authority – Constitutionality Test + Agenda Based Executions
The Right to
Work Law – Passes all Constitutionality Test.
The Right to
Work is the Right to Eat
Research
These Cases
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board of the Town of North Elba ...
Supreme
Court of New
York,
Appellate Division ... operate in the Town of North Elba, Essex
County ( see, Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v.
... Planning Bd. of City of ...
BRADY v. WAL-MART | 2d Cir. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
Important
Paras. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
under the ADA, a plaintiff must show (a) that his employer is subject
to the ADA; (b) that ...
ARGENTO v. WAL MART STORES INC | FindLaw
Corp.,
50 A.D.3d 357, 358, 855 N.Y.S.2d 104; Matter of DeBlasio v. City
of New York,
24 Misc.3d 789, 798, 883 N.Y.S.2d 843). Here, while the plaintiff
offered no ...
Fact Check: The New York Times "The Corporate ... - WalMart's Blog
Jun
20, 2014 - We
saw this article in The New
York Times
and couldn't overlook ... Associate story re: public assistance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WwGhOhRH38
.... The week that Hurricane Michael hit Panama City,
Florida, Nick ...
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock, 483 F. Supp. 2d 987 ...
Jul
3, 2006 - v. CITY OF
TURLOCK, Turlock City Council,
and Does 1 through 10, ...... was to keep larger out-of-state fishing
boats out of New
York waters, ...
Primex Intl Corp. v. Wal-Mart, 679 N.E.2d 624 - CourtListener.com
Mar
27, 1997 - Wal-Mart,
679 N.E.2d 624, 657 N.Y.S.2d 385, 89 N.Y.2d
594 — Brought to you ... Leader & Berkon, New
York City (Joseph
G. Colao and Glen ...
Searches related to Walmart v. the City of New York
Local
Results
In
the context of U.S.
labor politics, "right-to-work
laws" refers
to state laws that prohibit union
security agreements between
companies and labor
unions.
Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from
negotiating contracts which require all members who benefit from the
union contract to contribute to the costs of union representation.[1]
According
to the Legal
Defense Foundation,
right-to-work laws prohibit union
security agreements,
or agreements between employers and labor
unions,
that govern the extent to which an established union can require
employees' membership, payment of union
dues,
or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.
Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee
of employment to
people seeking work, but rather are a government ban on contractual
agreements between employers and union employees requiring workers to
pay for the costs of union representation.[2]
Right-to-work
laws (either by statutes or
by constitutional provision)
exist in 26 U.S.
states,
mostly in the Southern, Western,
and Midwestern states.
Business interests represented by the United
States Chamber of Commerce have
lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[3][4] Such
laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley
Act.
A further distinction is often made within the law between people
employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the
private sector, with states that are otherwise union
shop (i.e.,
workers must pay for union representation in order to obtain or
retain a job) having right to work laws in effect for government
employees; provided, however, that the law also permits an "agency
shop" where employees pay their share for representation (less
than union dues), while not joining the union as members.
SafeLink Wireless®
is a Lifeline supported service, a government benefit program.
Only eligible consumers may enroll in Lifeline. Lifeline service is
non-transferable and limited to one per household.
No comments:
Post a Comment