Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the labor code. try again.

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "DIVISION 1. UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION"

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

 

[Faun]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

 

[Faun]

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "DIVISION 1. UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION"

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

 

[danielpalos]

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

 

[Faun]

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

 

[Faun]

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

You've utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing. Regardless, I asked you how those two statutes conflict and you couldn't even do that. Obviously, the only confliction exists nowhere but in your imagination.

 

[danielpalos]

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

You've utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing. Regardless, I asked you how those two statutes conflict and you couldn't even do that. Obviously, the only confliction exists nowhere but in your imagination.

You are simply incompetent in the law.

It is a simple, conflict of laws. The labor code enacts no such for-Cause restrictions on employment in the State.

 

[Faun]

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

 

[Faun]

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

You've utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing. Regardless, I asked you how those two statutes conflict and you couldn't even do that. Obviously, the only confliction exists nowhere but in your imagination.

You are simply incompetent in the law.

It is a simple, conflict of laws. The labor code enacts no such for-Cause restrictions on employment in the State.

Well you have both statutes right in front of you -- highlight the conflict.

 

[danielpalos]

Projecting much? Simple rejection is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

 

[danielpalos]

A federal doctrine is the default, if there is any question.

Yes, California Labor Code 2922. It is a simple, conflict of laws. Thank goodness for federalists.

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

You've utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing. Regardless, I asked you how those two statutes conflict and you couldn't even do that. Obviously, the only confliction exists nowhere but in your imagination.

You are simply incompetent in the law.

It is a simple, conflict of laws. The labor code enacts no such for-Cause restrictions on employment in the State.

Well you have both statutes right in front of you -- highlight the conflict.

Where is there Any restriction on employment at will, in the labor code? The Labor Code defines employment relations.

 

[danielpalos]

Just standard and political, "right wing hate on the poor".

 

[Faun]

No, not projecting at all, actually. Why do you ask?

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

 

[danielpalos]

Merely the Institutional nature of public policies which happen to, "help the rich get richer at the expense of the poor". equal protection of the law, for free, matters.

 

[danielpalos]

The person who resorts to the most fallacies, is the "most nuts".

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

 

[Faun]

LAB § 2292

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

UIC § 1256

An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his or her work and not to have voluntarily left his or her work without good cause unless his or her employer has given written notice to the contrary to the department as provided in Section 1327, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption.  The presumption provided by this section is rebuttable.​

Where's the contradiction between those two statutes? I don't see it.

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

You've utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing. Regardless, I asked you how those two statutes conflict and you couldn't even do that. Obviously, the only confliction exists nowhere but in your imagination.

You are simply incompetent in the law.

It is a simple, conflict of laws. The labor code enacts no such for-Cause restrictions on employment in the State.

Well you have both statutes right in front of you -- highlight the conflict.

Where is there Any restriction on employment at will, in the labor code? The Labor Code defines employment relations.

Your dementia worsens. LAB § 2292 outlines employment, not employment benefits. UIC § 1256 outlines employment benefits. There is no conflict.

 

[danielpalos]

UIC is an Infringement to the Individual Liberty afforded by a federal doctrine and State law regarding the legal concept of employment (at the will of either party, not just the employer's, for unemployment compensation).

Unequal protection of the law is repugnant to our California supreme law of the land and null and void, from Inception.

You've utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing. Regardless, I asked you how those two statutes conflict and you couldn't even do that. Obviously, the only confliction exists nowhere but in your imagination.

You are simply incompetent in the law.

It is a simple, conflict of laws. The labor code enacts no such for-Cause restrictions on employment in the State.

Well you have both statutes right in front of you -- highlight the conflict.

Where is there Any restriction on employment at will, in the labor code? The Labor Code defines employment relations.

Your dementia worsens. LAB § 2292 outlines employment, not employment benefits. UIC § 1256 outlines employment benefits. There is no conflict.

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.
There are no for-cause restrictions on any at-will employment relationship in the State.