Family Matrix
Bryon twin is not the liar Kevin there is Maron and Kevin + Bryon and ? INTEL suggest, it is Alphonso and aka Meatball - whose real name few know.
BETA –PCS-MIS - Before End Technologies Applications
The Stages of BETA - Software release life cycle
ASCAP:
Copyrights are
register at the Library O.I.G.
These are what it
states Copy – Rights. Then it is donated to ASCAP and payments are
based on right owners Constitutions to society.
Royal
Wiki: USCUG: There is One Living God and One Royal Family –
Protected by the Union.
A royal
family is
the immediate family of a king or queen
regnant,
and sometimes his or her extended family. The term imperial
family appropriately
describes the family of an emperor or empress,
and the term papal
family describes
the family of a pope,
while the terms baronial
family, comital
family, ducal
family, archducal
family, grand
ducal family,
or princely
family are
more appropriate to describe, respectively, the relatives of a
reigning baron, count, duke, archduke, grand
duke,
or prince.
However, in common parlance members of any family which reigns by
hereditary right are often referred to as royalty or "royals."
It is also customary in some circles to refer to the extended
relations of a deposed monarch and
his or her descendants as a royal family. A dynasty is
sometimes referred to as "the House of ...". As of July
2013, there are 26 active sovereign monarchies in the world who rule
or reign over 43 countries in all.[1]
Taxation of the
People Unconstitutional
Wherefore God is
charity and charity is love and God is the Law, wherefore the USCUG
is love. If you know love you know the Law. Often it takes ten
minutes to find the truth, wherefore the same line a rationalization
my take 10 years to find a loophole.
Makes it easy to
see without overlay dissecting the elements involve:
- Ownership of something donated goes to the recipient or beneficiary.
- The software company has rights to protect its BETA or software copyrights, technological research, advancements and development.
- Digital Replications of data is not owned by being an End User.
- The person who actually uses a particular product.
I person buys a
Michael Jackson album, it is in WMA Pro. He cannot say, I own it,
because he has the right to use it, based on an End User Agreement,
no more than a person using the Internet and uploading his
information on the World Wide Web. If so, there would be very little
control over the products use or the medium technologies used to
exploit persons works. Criticism of this clearly rational practice
of Patents, trademarks and copyrighted technologies would place our
Union is serious security breeches.
The Right on Magazine Comeback
BET QQ Tyra Developing Story - Stay tuned - this is just an opening Statement.
Hyperlink
The Jackson 5
Right On Magazine Covers
Right
On! was
an American teen
magazine first
published by the Laufer Company in 1972 with editor/creator Judy
Wieder and art director William Cragun. It continued publishing to c.
2011 and focused on African-American celebrities.
Right
on Magazine started in 1972. Was a great promotional tool and the
idea was to get kids to read and engage. It was a magazine of
fictitious characters of ideas and dreams. Understand what transpired
in the 1960’s and it was a rational idea, but these hopes and
dreams were converted into Trivia and fictionally confused Freedom of
Speech slander and Libel. Wherefore, the intent was not to create a
lasting lie, but to allow kids to create dialog, give them hope and
to entertain them.
Right On Magazine Comeback
ASCAP
– Artist Society Composers Actors Producers
There
are new protocols being developed to prevent Fictitious or business
names used by entertainers as a protection to privacy and other
Constitutional rights protections, to never again be made into a
concept of Fantasy Biographical content.
Wherefore
a celebrity is not fair game for slander and fictional concepts which
are used to destroy Business causing many persons to lose earning
ability due to pure slander and libel campaigns. Many artist and
actors have experienced these disabilities resulting in career ending
situations.
To
destroy a person ability to earn a living based on interferences in
the development of these business entities is unconstitutional. To
destroy the career of a person based on slander and libel, is no
different than saying Microsoft Windows Operating System causing
brain damage and to convince the consumer base to no patronize and
use Microsoft products. Microsoft, like Michael Jackson are in fact
DBA Do Business As – Entities, with Birth Records and wherefore
cannot ever be deceased.
Deceased:
To
die - The act of dying; death:
Copyrighted work
does not become public domain when its owner dies. ... In modern
US copyright
law,
for works made by individuals (not works made by corporations), works
are protected for the author's entire life plus 70 years. When an
author dies, the ownership of the copyright changes.
Jun 28, 2017.
The
Copyright Office is open for normal business, weekdays 8:30 am to
5pm. We are not directly affected by the partial government shutdown.
Online registration is available every day.
What Does Copyright Protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
Can I copyright my website?
The original authorship appearing on a website may be protected by copyright. This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by copyright. Procedures for registering the contents of a website may be found in Circular 66, Copyright Registration of Websites and Website Content.
Can I copyright my domain name?
Copyright law does not protect domain names. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit organization that has assumed the responsibility for domain name system management, administers the assigning of domain names through accredited registers.
How do I protect my recipe?
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.
Can I copyright the name of my band?
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or see Circular 34 "Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases".How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or see Circular 33, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.
How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
Does my work have to be published to be protected?
Publication is not necessary for copyright protection.
Can I register a diary I found in my grandmother's attic?
You can register copyright in the diary within a certain duration only if you own the rights to the work, for example, by will or by inheritance. Copyright is the right of the author of the work or the author's heirs or assignees, not of the one who only owns or possesses the physical work itself. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Who Can Claim Copyright.”
How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?
Copyright law does not protect sightings. However, copyright law will protect your photo (or other depiction) of your sighting of Elvis. File your claim to copyright online by means of the electronic Copyright Office (eCO). Pay the fee online and attach a copy of your photo. For more information on registering a copyright, see SL-35. No one can lawfully use your photo of your sighting, although someone else may file his own photo of his sighting. Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of the photograph.
Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works
Can I get a star named after me and claim copyright to it?
No. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this. Names are not protected by copyright. Publishers of works such as a star registry may register a claim to copyright in the text of the volume [or book] containing the names the registry has assigned to stars, and perhaps the compilation of data; but such a registration would not extend protection to any of the individual star names appearing therein. Copyright registration of such a volume of star names does not confer any official or governmental status on any of the star names included in the volume. For further information on copyright protection and names, see Circular 33, Works Not Protected by Copyright
Can
you own Digital Information? Wiki
End-user license agreement
n proprietary
software,
an end-user
license agreement (EULA)
or software
license agreement is
the contract between
the licensor and purchaser, establishing the purchaser's right to use
the software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be
used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the
first sale doctrine and 17
U.S.C. § 117(freedom
to use, archive, re-sale, and backup with legal restrictions).
Many
form contracts are only contained in digital form, and only presented
to a user as a click-through where
the user must "accept". As the user may not see the
agreement until after he or she has already purchased the software,
these documents may be contracts
of adhesion.
Software
companies often make special agreements with large businesses and
government entities that include support contracts and specially
drafted warranties.
Some
end-user license agreements accompany shrink-wrapped software that is
presented to a user sometimes on paper or more usually
electronically, during the installation procedure. The user has the
choice of accepting or rejecting the agreement. The installation of
the software is conditional to the user clicking a button labelled
"accept". See below.
Many
EULAs assert extensive liability limitations. Most commonly, an EULA
will attempt to hold
harmless the
software licensor in the event that the software causes damage to the
user's computer or data, but some software also proposes limitations
on whether the licensor can be held liable for damage that arises
through improper use of the software (for example, incorrectly using
tax preparation software and incurring penalties as a result). One
case upholding such limitations on consequential
damages is M.A.
Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., et al.[citation
needed] Some
EULAs also claim restrictions on venue and applicable law in the
event that a legal dispute arises.
Some
copyright owners use EULAs in an effort to circumvent limitations the
applicable copyright law places on their copyrights (such as the
limitations in sections 107–122 of the United
States Copyright Act),
or
to expand the scope of control over the work into areas for which
copyright protection is denied by law (such as attempting to charge
for, regulate or prevent private performances of a work beyond a
certain number of performances or beyond a certain period of time).
Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract,
over matters upon which copyright law precludes control. [1] This
kind of EULAs concurs in aim with DRM and
both may be used as alternate methods for widening control over
software.
In
disputes of this nature in the United States, cases are often
appealed and different circuit courts of appeal sometimes disagree
about these clauses. This provides an opportunity for the U.S.
Supreme Court to
intervene, which it has usually done in a scope-limited and cautious
manner, providing little in the way of precedent or
settled law.[citation
needed]
End-user
license agreements are usually lengthy, and written in highly
specific legal language, making it difficult for the average user to
give informed consent [2].
If
the company designs the end-user license agreement in a way that
intentionally discourages users from reading them, and uses difficult
to understand language, many of the users may not be giving informed
consent.
Comparison with free software licenses
A free
software license
grants users of that software the rights to use for any purpose,
modify and redistribute creative works and software, both of which
are forbidden by the defaults of copyright, and generally not granted
with proprietary
software. These
licenses typically include a disclaimer of warranty,
but this feature is not unique to free
software. [3] Copyleft licenses
also include a key addition provision that must be followed in order
to copy or modify the software, that requires the user to provide
source code for the work and to distribute their modifications under
the same license (or sometimes a compatible one); thus effectively
protecting derivative works from losing the original permissions and
being used in proprietary programs.
Unlike
EULAs, free software licenses do not work as contractual extensions
to existing legislation. No agreement between parties is ever held,
because a copyright license is simply a declaration of permissions on
something that otherwise would be disallowed by default under
copyright law.[1]
Shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses
The
term shrink-wrap
license refers
colloquially to any software license agreement which is enclosed
within a software package and is inaccessible to the customer until
after purchase. Typically, the license agreement is printed on paper
included inside the boxed software. It may also be presented to the
user on-screen during installation, in which case the license is
sometimes referred to as a click-wrap
license.
The inability of the customer to review the license agreement before
purchasing the software has caused such licenses to run afoul of
legal challenges in some cases.
Whether
shrink-wrap licenses are legally binding differs between
jurisdictions, though a majority of jurisdictions hold such licenses
to be enforceable. At particular issue is the difference in opinion
between two US courts in Klocek
v. Gateway and Brower
v. Gateway.
Both
cases involved a shrink-wrapped license document provided by the
online vendor of a computer system. The terms of the shrink-wrapped
license were not provided at the time of purchase, but were rather
included with the shipped product as a printed document. The license
required the customer to return the product within a limited time
frame if the license was not agreed to. In Brower,
New York's state appeals court ruled that the terms of the
shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the
customer's assent was evident by its failure to return the
merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document. The U.S.
District Court of Kansas in Klocek ruled
that the contract of sale was complete at the time of the
transaction, and the additional shipped terms contained in a document
similar to that in Brower did
not constitute a contract, because the customer never agreed to them
when the contract of sale was completed.
Further,
in ProCD
v. Zeidenberg,
the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the
customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an "I
Agree" button in order to install the software. In Specht
v. Netscape Communications Corp.,
however,
the licensee was able to download and install the software without
first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of
the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable.
Click-wrap
license agreements refer to website based contract formation
(see iLan
Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp.).
A
common example of this occurs where a user must affirmatively assent
to license terms of a website, by clicking "yes"
on a pop-up, in order to access website features. This is therefore
analogous to shrink-wrap licenses, where a buyer implied agrees to
license terms by first removing the software package's shrink-wrap
and then utilizing the software itself. In both types of analysis,
focus is on the actions of end user and asks whether there is an
explicit or implicit acceptance of the additional licensing terms.
Product liability
Most
licenses for software sold at retail disclaim (as far as local laws
permit) any warranty on
the performance of the software and limit liability for any damages
to the purchase price of the software. One well-known case which
upheld such a disclaimer is Mortenson v. Timberline .
Patent
Main
article: Software
patent
In
addition to the implied exhaustion
doctrine,
the distributor may include patent licenses along with software.
Reverse engineering
Forms
often prohibit users from reverse
engineering.
This
may also serve to make it difficult to develop third-party software
which interoperates with the licensed software, thus increasing
the value of the publisher's solutions through
decreased customer choice. In the United States, EULA provisions can
preempt the reverse engineering rights implied by fair use,
c.f. Bowers
v. Baystate Technologies.
Some
licenses [4] purport
to prohibit a user's right to release data on the performance of the
software, but this has yet to be challenged in court.
Enforceability of EULAs in the United States
This
section about the legal enforceability of end-user license
agreements relies
too much on references to primary
sources. Please
improve this section about the legal enforceability of end-user
license agreements by adding secondary
or tertiary sources.(July
2015) (Learn
how and when to remove this template message)
The
enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them
being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have
addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have
found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts
of adhesion, unconscionable,
and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.—see,
for instance, Step-Saver
Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,[5] Vault
Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd..[6] Other
courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid
and enforceable: see ProCD,
Inc. v. Zeidenberg,[7] Microsoft
v. Harmony Computers,[8]Novell
v. Network Trade Center,[9] and Ariz.
Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.[10] may
have some bearing as well. No court has ruled on the validity of
EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and
terms.
The 7th
Circuit and 8th
Circuit subscribe
to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other
circuits do not[citation
needed].
In
addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state
has passed the Uniform
Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
or Anti-UCITA (UCITA
Bomb Shelter)
laws.
In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform
Commercial Code(UCC) has been amended to either specifically
define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to
disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are
subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.
Recently[when?],
publishers have begun to encrypt their
software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the
software without either agreeing to the license agreement or
violating the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
and foreign
counterparts.[citation
needed]
The
DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for
interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to
whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are
enforceable. The 8th
Circuit case of Davidson
& Associates v. Jung[11] determined
that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal
Circuit decision
of Baystate
v. Bowers.[12]
- Eben Moglen (10 September 2001). "Enforcing the GNU GPL". gnu.org. Free Software Foundation, Inc. Archived from the original on 26 April 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
- ^ Bashir, M., Hayes, C., Lambert, A. D., & Kesan, J. P. (2015). Online privacy and informed consent: The dilemma of information asymmetry. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1-10. doi:10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010043
- ^ Con Zymaris (5 May 2003). "A Comparison of the GPL and the Microsoft EULA" (PDF): 3, 12–16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2008. Retrieved 19 July 2013.
- ^ Pournelle, Jerry (June 1983). "Zenith Z-100, Epson QX-10, Software Licensing, and the Software Piracy Problem". BYTE. p. 411. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
- ^ Heathen (23 March 2012). "No One Reads the "Terms And Conditions" and Here's Why". 102.5 KISSFM. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ Pidaparthy, Umika (May 6, 2011). "What you should know about iTunes' 56-page legal terms". CNN. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ "7,500 Online Shoppers Unknowingly Sold Their Souls". FoxNews.com. April 15, 2010. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ O'Grady, Jason D. "South Park parodies iTunes terms and conditions". ZDNet. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ Jamillah Knowles. Clickwrapped report tells you which sites claim ownership of your content, and you’ll be surprised. TheNextWeb. August 21, 2012. Accessed July 29, 2013.
External links
Jesus Christ, INC - activated Corporations - Gen. George W. Bush -'Locate business Properties.
| Owner Name | Address | City | State | Current/Past |
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC. | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S. A. AVE ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC. | 923 S.A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S.A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S.A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 S.A. AVE ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 SOUTH A AVE ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC | 923 SOUTH A AVE ORDER OF ZEWS | AVON PARK | FL |
C
|
FIST - Lock in on these properties to a 24 Point Grid on DMD Plot
Returned
13 records.
| Parcel ID | Owner Name | Site Address | City | Zip | |
1
|
C-01-33-28-010-0000-4403 | KELLY HERBERT | 1855 N ZENITH RD AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
2
|
C-19-33-28-080-0040-0010 | KELLY HERBERT | 225 BALLARD RD AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
3
|
A-26-33-28-070-00B0-0190 | KELLY HERBERT | 941 S DELANEY AVE AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
4
|
A-27-33-28-080-00C0-0090 | KELLY HERBERT | 948 S DELANEY AVE AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
5
|
A-27-33-28-130-0010-0012 | KELLY HERBERT | 205 TULANE DR AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
6
|
C-27-33-28-150-0000-0551 | KELLY HERBERT | 206 GARRETT RD HOUSE AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825- |
7
|
C-27-33-28-150-0000-0560 | KELLY HERBERT | 204 GARRETT RD AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
8
|
A-27-33-28-A00-1080-0020 | KELLY HERBERT | 51 ALICE NELSON ST AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
9
|
A-27-33-28-A00-1080-0030 | KELLY HERBERT | 55 ALICE NELSON ST AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
10
|
A-27-33-28-A00-1080-0040 | KELLY HERBERT | 63 ALICE NELSON ST AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
11
|
C-01-33-28-060-0530-0210 | KELLY HERBERT JANE | 2906 W METUCHEN RD AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
12
|
A-26-33-28-070-00B0-0140 | KELLY HERBERT JANE | 942 S PINELAND AVE AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
13
|
C-27-33-28-150-0000-0550 | KELLY HERBERT JANE | 38156 S GEORGIA AVE AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
1
|
A-27-33-28-080-00C0-0180 | FOGLE LULA BELL ESTATE | ||||
1
|
A-26-33-28-070-00B0-0210 | MOSS JOHN W | 935 S DELANEY AVE BAR & APTS AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 | |
1
|
A-27-33-28-080-00C0-0160 | ESTON ROBERTS COMMUNITY NETWORK INC | 923 S A AVE AVON PARK | AVON PARK | 33825 |
Highlands County Property Appraisal claimed change of ownership info was due to information from My Florida Corporation. I tell him, I own it. This is fraud - up date this. Just Do it, the entries are fraudulent period. This is a DOJ and Library of O.I.G. issue and GOTA is over O.I.G. so stop embarrassing me. This is a Field Grade Order.
Rep. B. Eva Jones.
Rep. B. Eva Jones.
| Document Number | Status | |
| THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY NETWORK, INC | N09000010173 | NAME HS |
| JESUS CHRIST, INC. | N16000009754 | Active |
| ESTON ROBERTS COMMUNITY NETWORK INC. | N09000010173 | Active |
These Theatres belong to Jesus Christ INC via Sony & Universal.
AMC Theatres
AMC
Theatres (originally
an abbreviation for American
Multi-Cinema,
often referred to simply as AMC and
known in some countries as AMC
Cinemas)
is an American movie
theater chain.
Founded in 1920, AMC has the largest share of the American theater
market ahead of Regal
Cinemas and Cinemark
Theatres.
The company's headquarters are located in Leawood,
Kansas.
After
acquiring Odeon
Cinemas, UCI
Cinemas,
and Carmike
Cinemas in
2016, it became the largest movie theater chain in the world, and
also the largest in the United States,[3] with
2,200 screens in 244 theatres in Europe and over 8,200 screens in 661
theatres in the United States.[4]
James Brown, INC, goes back about 150 years and owns all these Corporations.
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
| JAMES - BROWN LLC | L14000148890 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN, INC. | P03000122432 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN BUILDERS, INC. | P97000022976 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN CARPET SERVICES, LLC | L03000046331 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN COLOR WHEEL LLC | L15000072298 | Active |
| JAMES BROWN CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED | K07681 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN CONTRACTING, INC. | F04000000535 | NAME HS |
| JAMES BROWN CONTRACTOR, INC. | G21529 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN ENTERPRISES, INC. | P01000117050 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | A96000001443 | Active |
| JAMES BROWN FRAMEING, INC | P02000111961 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. | 659649 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN JANITIORIAL SERVICE, INC. | 571069 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC. | P93000074195 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN LANDSCAPING, LLC | L10000106446 | InActive |
| JAMES BROWN MASONRY LLC | L09000088875 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN ORIGINAL TRIBUTE BAND, CORP. | P07000099433 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN PAINTING LLC | L04000032600 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN PAINTING LLC | L15000032787 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN PAINTING LLC | L18000225150 | Active |
Top of
Form
Bottom
of Form
Entity Name List
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
| JAMES BROWN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. | 541805 | NAME HS |
| JAMES BROWN REALTY, INC. | H42368 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN RENOVATIONS LLC | L05000122700 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN REVIVALS, INC. | 722998 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN SERVICES LLC | L16000057248 | Active |
| JAMES BROWN TREE SERVICE, INC. | P04000065809 | INACT |
| JAMES BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY | F04000000535 | CROSS RF |
| JAMES, BROWN, AND WALKER LLC | L08000041412 | INACT |
No comments:
Post a Comment