With the FDIC insolvent. With millions of thugs never serving the military getting benefits, while the real VETS sleep in the streets rather than sell drugs and do wrong.
Our nation, our Union is in a state of Lawlessness ran out of control. Just moments ago a thug in a Sherriff car came to kidnap me again?
All nation under the Constitution of the Union of Chaka Zulu, are to be set at Z1 to 5 of their currency to begin subsidized trading with the Blue Dough allowing 1 for 1 in morter, food, oil and technologies.
To the Spirit World, what happens on the 1st only mean the Union has a right to make purchases like anyone else and a 100 times the dollar dealing balance update, is pennies on the assets own by Union and for WAC, MAC and the Department of Defense it means service humans and Wohumans can get the things the Union has been deprived of due unprovicated hatred due to orecocieved notiins and this mean prejudice based hatred against God and his Children.
All ATM purchases will be process by EBT, which is under complete management of the Department of Defense.
D.O.J. Hate Crimes Protected Group #3704895
Members of the DOD WAC, MAC & verified dependents will see a daily balance update up to 100 time the dollar, depending on pay grade and allowences.
VHA, Medicaid and Medicare will pay for cannabis or medical marijuana.
I just a misdemeanor?The
Paul Castellano Studio Release Date Pending
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
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.
Right
On! was
an Americanteen
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.
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.
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 theU.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 theU.S.
Patent & Trademark Office, TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.govor
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 theelectronic
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
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-throughwhere
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 becontracts
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
harmlessthe
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 onconsequential
damagesis 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 theUnited
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 DRMand
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 theU.S.
Supreme Courtto
intervene, which it has usually done in a scope-limited and cautious
manner, providing little in the way of precedentor
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.
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]
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,
inProCD
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 .
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 solutionsthrough
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.
The 7th
Circuit and 8th
Circuitsubscribe
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.
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 theFederal
Circuitdecision
of Baystate
v. Bowers.[12]
^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
^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.
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.
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]
