https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-103 So, they’re claiming commercial rights as an individual. I’m not sure any judge would want to deal with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between individual and commercial. All of these I’ve seen deal with fighting their ability to drive a vehicle or child-support, so if it’s related to that the judge wasn’t getting puckered. He was getting ready to beat you with a mallet.
Is it still a thing? The website doesn’t go anywhere and I can’t find the app. All I can actually find are a few articles talking about how ridiculous it is to have a $2 subscription service on water fountains.
I have friends doing similar things in the area, and they’ve expressed they’ll remain to continue to to work. The kids are the ones who suffer the most in these circumstances. If missions start to leave the country then there are orphanages all over the country that will be immediately shut down, and the kids that had homes and food will be on the street and starving. The locals will not do it. It’s sad to see this kind of violence against people just doing a good thing in an area that needs it.
“Finance company owner purchases second home to get away from family”
There is the updated title. Not just a mother, a mother that owns their own company and wants to get away from family obligations. Do what you have to do to find peace, but this title does not express what is actually happening.
I had one of these until I got married. You will wake up, many times in a panic. Good times.
So, are we hoping this gets deleted as well to keep the tradition alive, or is this hopefully going to change moderation? I’m confused on how to feel about this.
There’s a link to this article. I haven’t vetted anything, so take it for what it is.
It is definitely this. “You’re not profilable, how do you expect us to sell you to advertisers?”
That’s the truth. Unless you’re sporting a trusted linux distro, and a dumb phone, something is always liatening.
Only log into these websites in a private browser you trust and they can’t “peek” in as readily.
Reading the whole Section, it seems they are leaning on this one phrase:
"SEC. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf "(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation,
Which is duplicated here in some part here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1365
They’re very good at looking at the letter of the law without considering the context or purpose of why it was written. Any number of logical fallacies are used to jump every shark possible.
It’s a free wifi service provided by the airline while on the flight. One ad, when most other places are charging $10-20 per flight? I’ll watch the single ad. I’d rather that then someone, say, injecting adverts into sites and services. which is very possible.