It's interesting to note that the one and only thing Ramsay had praise for about this restaurant was its desserts and cakes, which Amy claimed to personally create. He said they were wonderful and completely at odds with everything else about the place, which was dreadful. Well, as it turns out, in her Facebook meltdown, Amy admitted she doesn't actually make the desserts, she buys them elsewhere and repackages them as her own and she didn't tell Ramsay that because "he's foreign and wouldn't understand".
> Sales taxes in NC are paid upon getting a
> title for the car, so that's never avoided.
Not only is not avoided, sometimes it's double-dipped.
I bought a new 4Runner in Texas. Five years later, I moved to Virginia. When I took it to get registered at the Virginia DMV, they wanted me to pay sales tax on the car as if I'd bought it in Virginia. I told them I already paid sales tax on it when I bought it in Texas. They told me that didn't matter, that if I wanted to register it in Virginia, I had to pay the sales tax again to them. I threw a fit because this was a significant amount of money, and once the supervisor came out of the back, and it was obvious to her I was both an attorney and not willing to be screwed, the tax was suddenly 'waived'. I have a feeling they know they have a good scam going and don't want someone who knows the law to ruin it for them, so they waive it for anyone who looks like they might be trouble.
Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
> The Rothschilds own AP (Rothschilds purchased
> Reuters in the 1800s and Reuters purchased AP
> a few decades ago), The criminal families
> indirectly own the Justice Department through
> blackmail, secret socities and traitors so this
> is a load of BS propaganda.
> Card counting is illegal in Nevada, though Nevada is the
> only jurisdiction in the world that makes card counting illegal.
It most certainly is not illegal. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled conclusively that a player who uses nothing but his own innate ability, unassisted by technology or collaboration with others, cannot be prosecuted for cheating at a casino game.
> What about the hypocrisy of 2nd amendment
> advocates who totally disregard the 1st
> amendment rights of those who disagree with
What do you mean by 'totally disregard'?
If you're suggesting pro-2nd advocates are trying to have the government silence their critics under threat of arrest or sanction, then I will agree with you, that's a hypocritical position for them to take. I would also point out that no one on the pro-2nd side has actually done this.
If you're suggesting that merely arguing back is somehow the equivalent of 'totally disregarding' the free speech rights of their critics, I'd respectfully conclude that's nonsense. In other words, your free speech rights aren't being infringed merely because someone disagrees with you or says you're full of crap.
> I can agree with prosecuting someone for
> trespassing on private land, but that doesn't
> mean you can stop someone from making speech
> or recording it.
Actually, it does. I can make whatever rules I like for my own property. If I don't want people recording while there, I can legally do that. You don't have any constitutional right to film or speak or whatever on someone else's private property. (Try attending a taping of the TONIGHT SHOW or JIMMY KIMMEL or any other kind of show with a studio audience. Not only do they prohibit recordings, they run you through metal detectors and take your phones/cameras away from you and secure them until the show is over and you leave. You don't like it? You're free to not attend the show.)
The reason this case is different-- and why the charges were dropped-- is because this woman wasn't on private property when she was filming. She was on the public road, which makes all the difference in the world from a legal perspective.
Re: Re: Re: It's not "Make Porn Disappear Online", only in public spots.
> Art is something designed to elicit an
> emotional reaction from people. Porn certainly
> is that.
That's ridiculous. Merely eliciting an emotional response is hardly the sole qualificiation for artisitic expression. If it were, then those bombs that went off in Boston a few weeks ago qualified as performance art on a grand scale.
> "to make sure that people have confidence in
> public WiFi systems so that they are not going
> to see things they shouldn't."
Notice how he says "shouldn't" instead of "don't want to".
That tells you all you need to know about him-- that he's just another nanny-statist control freak who can't let grown adults decide for themselves how to run their own lives. He's going to decide for you, because he knows better than you do what's good for you.
> For a company of reasonable size opening a branch
> in a handful of states isn't going to be an issue.
They don't even have to open a branch. All they have to do is find an employee or someone they know who has friends or relatives in that state and have them file the request. Give them a Best Buy gift certificate for their time or something.
> Their bypass method is unlikely to work in
> the long run, the state is likely to take
> action against people who attempt to deceive them.
How is it an attempt to deceive? They're declaring themselves in-state residents (true) and they're making a legitimate request (true).
What 'action' can the state take against anyone who shares information gleaned from a FOIA response? That's the whole *purpose* of the FOIA law in the first place-- for citizens to be able to access their government's documents and share that information.
And while the Supreme Court may have upheld restrictions on who may *file* a state FOIA request, any attempt to procecute someone for sharing that information with an out of state resident or simply putting it on the internet would be bright-line violation of the 1st Amendment.
> it would seem to me that the constitutional
> issue is not if companies can force you to
> give up those logins in return for employment.
> its really if a state can pass a law that says
> they have that right.
If it's not an enumerated power of Congress under Article I, Section 8, then the power belongs to the state and/or local governments per the 10th Amendment.
> Are you implying that the companies aren't
> supposed to follow the Constitution? Heck,
> even law enforcement need warrants to go to
> such lengths. Are you mad?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but assuming you aren't, and that you're a U.S. citizen, it's a stinging indictment of our educational system that you'd even ask that question. (If you're not a U.S. citizen, then disregard.)
The Constitution only legally prohibits the GOVERNMENT from doing certain things, like infringing freedom of speech, or searching a home without a warrant. It has no application or restraint upon conduct between private parties. The only part of the Constitution that regulates conduct between one citizen and another is the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery.
So in answer to your question, no, companies are not supposed to (nor are they required to) follow the Constitution.