The Equality Act, another lawyers' full employment Act and an attack on inalienable rights

[danielpalos]

The only Equality Act we need is equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Only the morally challenged Right-Wing has a problem with it.

Well, all 5 of them and the entire legal profession. You know, the people who actually know the law?

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Do you deny that the entire legal profession agrees with me and disagrees with you about your imagined link between UC and at-will laws?

Yes. You (right-wingers) alleging something means Nothing. Get them on here to argue it with me. I already know right-wingers will have to make like Trumpian attorneys in open Court.

Can you cite any lawyer or judge's writing in which he agrees with you that at-will means you can collect UC? I want the legal professional's name and a link to his/her paper.

This issue is before the Court now. All I have been getting from, the establishment, is nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies not any sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation and the administration of Justice.

And, you can't find anyone to gainsay my contention or you would have brought them on here by now.

I don't have to give you any names because no one has ever tried to make the case that the laws are linked in any way except you.

Now, which court is hearing the case? Link to it so we can see the arguments being presented. And while you're at it, give us the name of the lawyer who is presenting your case and a link to his/her opinion on this law.

So what. Your opinion is irrelevant since this issue is before those delegated the Judicial power of the State or the Union.

So, after ranting on ad nauseum about people lying and being hypocrites, you are unwilling (or unable) to back up your contention that a lawyer has actually taken your case and is suing in court for you to be able to collect something you have no right to collect. I am not surprised.

How is your special pleading relevant? You don't Have to have an attorney in pro per.

So you're doing it all on your own. Like I said, you're the ONLY one who believes this.

Is it what happens when you discover you need a surgeon at law instead of merely a doctor at law?

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no natural rate of unemployment under capitalism.

How did you reach that conclusion? I understand economics unlike most right-wingers.

No you do not.

Yes, I do and You have no valid arguments to disprove it. You must not understand economics and practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) like the morally challenged Right-Wing.

No you do not.

I have proven on every thread that you are massively and intentionally ignorant. The burden is on you to prove that it exists and you cannot.

The cvlaim ids stupid and childish.

You simply appeal to ignorance as is typical of the Right-Wing by Habit.

Why do you believe there is no "natural rate of unemployment" under Capitalism?Yes and that is your engtire

No I never appeal and I correct your ignorance.

It is on you to prove that there is and you cannot.

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Your entire belief system is right wing fantasy

How can I tell right-wingers are lying? They type on the Internet and resort to fallacy instead valid arguments.

Yes you lie all the time in every post proving you srre precisely the right winger you describe and you never post valid arguments.

Right-Wingers are literally, Incredible in most threads and must be so in abortion threads.

This is not an abortion thread and in every thread you are the right winger who lies and appeals to ignorance.

Says a true-witness bearing challenged right-winger who practices the abomination of hypocrisy but wants to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" in any other thread.

I never displyed hypocrisy you did and i never want to be taken as the truth. I consistently prove you wrong two cfaced and dishonest which is not the same as wanting to be taken as the truth.

In right-wing fantasy, you are Always Right.

No you are always wrong.

 

[johnwk]

Sacramento Superior Court.

Provide a link to the case.

Public Case Access System

services.saccourt.ca.gov

I sent a follow-up email this morning.

Provide a link to the case.

I had to log into the public case access system and subscribe to the case.

Well then, post it here.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

Sacramento Superior Court.

Provide a link to the case.

Public Case Access System

services.saccourt.ca.gov

I sent a follow-up email this morning.

Provide a link to the case.

I had to log into the public case access system and subscribe to the case.

Well then, post it here.

JWK

You need to inform the Court you want to subscribe to a case.

 

[hadit]

The only Equality Act we need is equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Only the morally challenged Right-Wing has a problem with it.

Well, all 5 of them and the entire legal profession. You know, the people who actually know the law?

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Do you deny that the entire legal profession agrees with me and disagrees with you about your imagined link between UC and at-will laws?

Yes. You (right-wingers) alleging something means Nothing. Get them on here to argue it with me. I already know right-wingers will have to make like Trumpian attorneys in open Court.

Can you cite any lawyer or judge's writing in which he agrees with you that at-will means you can collect UC? I want the legal professional's name and a link to his/her paper.

This issue is before the Court now. All I have been getting from, the establishment, is nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies not any sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation and the administration of Justice.

And, you can't find anyone to gainsay my contention or you would have brought them on here by now.

I don't have to give you any names because no one has ever tried to make the case that the laws are linked in any way except you.

Now, which court is hearing the case? Link to it so we can see the arguments being presented. And while you're at it, give us the name of the lawyer who is presenting your case and a link to his/her opinion on this law.

So what. Your opinion is irrelevant since this issue is before those delegated the Judicial power of the State or the Union.

So, after ranting on ad nauseum about people lying and being hypocrites, you are unwilling (or unable) to back up your contention that a lawyer has actually taken your case and is suing in court for you to be able to collect something you have no right to collect. I am not surprised.

How is your special pleading relevant? You don't Have to have an attorney in pro per.

So you're doing it all on your own. Like I said, you're the ONLY one who believes this.

Is it what happens when you discover you need a surgeon at law instead of merely a doctor at law?

That makes no sense at all. I hope your legal argument is stronger than that.

 

[hadit]

Sacramento Superior Court.

Provide a link to the case.

Public Case Access System

services.saccourt.ca.gov

I sent a follow-up email this morning.

Provide a link to the case.

I had to log into the public case access system and subscribe to the case.

Well then, post it here.

JWK

You need to inform the Court you want to subscribe to a case.

It seems that you are actually willing to take this to court and try to get the law changed. We would like to see the arguments being presented and the judge's reactions.

 

[danielpalos]

Sacramento Superior Court.

Provide a link to the case.

Public Case Access System

services.saccourt.ca.gov

I sent a follow-up email this morning.

Provide a link to the case.

I had to log into the public case access system and subscribe to the case.

Well then, post it here.

JWK

You need to inform the Court you want to subscribe to a case.

It seems that you are actually willing to take this to court and try to get the law changed. We would like to see the arguments being presented and the judge's reactions.

I made a motion for summary judgement due to non-responsiveness from those of the opposing view who must not have any valid legal arguments for rebuttal.

 

[johnwk]

The only Equality Act we need is equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Only the morally challenged Right-Wing has a problem with it.

Well, all 5 of them and the entire legal profession. You know, the people who actually know the law?

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful.

Do you deny that the entire legal profession agrees with me and disagrees with you about your imagined link between UC and at-will laws?

Yes. You (right-wingers) alleging something means Nothing. Get them on here to argue it with me. I already know right-wingers will have to make like Trumpian attorneys in open Court.

Can you cite any lawyer or judge's writing in which he agrees with you that at-will means you can collect UC? I want the legal professional's name and a link to his/her paper.

This issue is before the Court now. All I have been getting from, the establishment, is nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies not any sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation and the administration of Justice.

And, you can't find anyone to gainsay my contention or you would have brought them on here by now.

I don't have to give you any names because no one has ever tried to make the case that the laws are linked in any way except you.

Now, which court is hearing the case? Link to it so we can see the arguments being presented. And while you're at it, give us the name of the lawyer who is presenting your case and a link to his/her opinion on this law.

So what. Your opinion is irrelevant since this issue is before those delegated the Judicial power of the State or the Union.

So, after ranting on ad nauseum about people lying and being hypocrites, you are unwilling (or unable) to back up your contention that a lawyer has actually taken your case and is suing in court for you to be able to collect something you have no right to collect. I am not surprised.

How is your special pleading relevant? You don't Have to have an attorney in pro per.

So you're doing it all on your own. Like I said, you're the ONLY one who believes this.

Is it what happens when you discover you need a surgeon at law instead of merely a doctor at law?

That makes no sense at all. I hope your legal argument is stronger than that.

I wish I could understand exactly what he is arguing. Aside from that I wonder how it is pertinent to the subject of the thread.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

How typical of the ignorant right-wing who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" regarding morals. It is about equality.

 

[johnwk]

How typical of the ignorant right-wing who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" regarding morals. It is about equality.

Right-wing? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

In regard to, "it's about equality", that too needs some clarification.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

 

[danielpalos]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[johnwk]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

View attachment 504765

JWK

We don't any more Acts.

 

[johnwk]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

View attachment 504765

JWK

We don't any more Acts.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

We don't need any more "equality acts".