Money orders are indeed more smart. They provide a receipt. Ever have someone tell you that you didn't pay them, then you had to go and get the receipt to prove it to them? It does happen.
That doesn't sound lawful. Perhaps the justice system there is messed up. How is a person suppose to know and be able to defend him or herself without being EXPLICITLY told?
Doesn't there have to be proof the one being served have read the summons? Isn't that the whole point of a sheriff serving the papers directly to a person, or someone receiving some sort of certified mail with a kind of receipt?
Care to guess what the end result is going to be for what content they prevent adults to see? Add frog to pot. Bring the pot to a slow boil. Serve, freedom free.
You mean the concept of "Back in my day, we didn't have text messaging. We had to walk 20 miles in the snow to let such and such know such and such info."?
Concerning property taxes, I oppose residential property taxes. Residential property taxes don't factor in income, and I would rather see something progressive to take their place. Perhaps an income tax (which we don't have one in my state) to completely replace them. Or even an income state on interest and dividends only to help lower residential property tax by the take-in amount.
I think the solution is going to combine a variety of options.
First of all, all states are different, and although some states currently have tolls, some states tolls are an oddity if they were implemented. (It makes it worse when a state that lacks tolls decides to implement them and start charging firetrucks to use the toll.)
If tolls are going to be done, they should either be limited to paying for the construction of the road itself, or to pay for the upkeep of the road. Having a "free" day once a week should be done so people who cannot afford it can avoid it. Going even further, we might allow those living in poverty to bypass the toll by giving them a special sticker.
I prefer the concept of a car tax, voluntary as opposed to personal property taxes, done each year. We might exempt the first $5k of a vehicle's blue book value, and tax the excess at a given percentage. We might extend the exemption to $10k, limit one vehicle, for senior citizens who qualify based on income.
We might eliminate the gas tax, if we use the above idea, but it would have to be very progressive for that to happen.
But instead of eliminating the gas tax, we might simply eliminate it for residents only, meaning out-of-state drivers would pay it if their license plate isn't from within state. (So this idea combined both above, a gas tax for out-of-staters and a vehicle tax for in-staters who would pay no gas tax.)
So you're saying those who are sick and tired of being poor should just go out and get a higher paying job? Well, that sure seems like a sure fire way to solve poverty!
If I'm not mistaken, vehicles in Washington state are exempt from personal property tax (as in annual taxation). (The property tax system needs reformed, but that is another issue.)
We do pay I think $30 per vehicle to get tabs/tags/whatever-is-the-term.
We have a high gas tax I believe, yet we don't really have any tolls. I'm not sure if there currently are any. Some newly created things might get tolls (which brings up other issues as they want to have emergency vehicles, like firetrucks, to get past the toll).
I'm thinking more of having a vehicle tax where perhaps the first $10k is exempt. Take the blue book value, subtract $10k, then tax the remaining at a percentage each year.
The thing is, if we don't make the tax progressive like this, the poor cannot necessarily get around, and as such, the economy is going to take a hit. Sometimes things have to be "unfair" to be "fair".
I am not talking about heavily taxing the rich. I am not talking about heavily taxing the poor. I am talking about a compromise.
In all fairness, it would probably be a much wiser decision to do taxes on the vehicle and eliminate fuel taxes altogether. Then we could really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue.
In my state, we have fuel taxes and taxes on vehicles. Of course, the taxes on vehicles are more or less flat, so a vehicle worth $50k will pay the same tax as a vehicle worth $7k.
The problem is, that if you're using any sort of excuse not to fight the system, the system can use that against you. If someone isn't fighting because they are sick, injured, etc., then it is entirely possible, somehow, for the system to keep that someone down just so they cannot rise up.
Fortunately, we don't have to fight ourselves. We have other people there to do the things we cannot do without severe exhaustion.
I for one won't stand for defemation of character, if it were to happen to me. If I feel I'm being wronged, and if I firmly and absolutely believe I'm in the right, I won't let the issue drop, regardless of how easy it may be to deal with it by just accepting the events.
Of course, there are other "interesting" ways to deal with being wronged. One way is to fight it in another ways. Contacting politicans, the ACLU, etc., until something is done. I find signing one's name to something, even if it isn't mentioning guilt, is still accepting the blame. (Kind of like when filling out forms, and it asks you if you have ever been convicted or PLEADED NO CONTEST to a crime.)
Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
State property is government property, correct? The government is by, for, and of the people, therefore the government is the people. Therefore, wouldn't state property be public property in a sense?
Slashdot Mirror
Money orders are indeed more smart. They provide a receipt. Ever have someone tell you that you didn't pay them, then you had to go and get the receipt to prove it to them? It does happen.
Mr. Jintao, tear down this (fire)wall!
That doesn't sound lawful. Perhaps the justice system there is messed up. How is a person suppose to know and be able to defend him or herself without being EXPLICITLY told?
Doesn't there have to be proof the one being served have read the summons? Isn't that the whole point of a sheriff serving the papers directly to a person, or someone receiving some sort of certified mail with a kind of receipt?
I feel inflation is a key problem, and if we solve it, people wouldn't pirate as much, if at all.
If you had the technology, would you clone/build a popular car without paying for the intellectual rights to do so?
Care to guess what the end result is going to be for what content they prevent adults to see? Add frog to pot. Bring the pot to a slow boil. Serve, freedom free.
You mean the concept of "Back in my day, we didn't have text messaging. We had to walk 20 miles in the snow to let such and such know such and such info."?
I don't know, perhaps there is a gadget that can tell me how long I would live without my gadgets.
Concerning property taxes, I oppose residential property taxes. Residential property taxes don't factor in income, and I would rather see something progressive to take their place. Perhaps an income tax (which we don't have one in my state) to completely replace them. Or even an income state on interest and dividends only to help lower residential property tax by the take-in amount.
I think the solution is going to combine a variety of options.
First of all, all states are different, and although some states currently have tolls, some states tolls are an oddity if they were implemented. (It makes it worse when a state that lacks tolls decides to implement them and start charging firetrucks to use the toll.)
If tolls are going to be done, they should either be limited to paying for the construction of the road itself, or to pay for the upkeep of the road. Having a "free" day once a week should be done so people who cannot afford it can avoid it. Going even further, we might allow those living in poverty to bypass the toll by giving them a special sticker.
I prefer the concept of a car tax, voluntary as opposed to personal property taxes, done each year. We might exempt the first $5k of a vehicle's blue book value, and tax the excess at a given percentage. We might extend the exemption to $10k, limit one vehicle, for senior citizens who qualify based on income.
We might eliminate the gas tax, if we use the above idea, but it would have to be very progressive for that to happen.
But instead of eliminating the gas tax, we might simply eliminate it for residents only, meaning out-of-state drivers would pay it if their license plate isn't from within state. (So this idea combined both above, a gas tax for out-of-staters and a vehicle tax for in-staters who would pay no gas tax.)
So you're saying those who are sick and tired of being poor should just go out and get a higher paying job? Well, that sure seems like a sure fire way to solve poverty!
If I'm not mistaken, vehicles in Washington state are exempt from personal property tax (as in annual taxation). (The property tax system needs reformed, but that is another issue.)
We do pay I think $30 per vehicle to get tabs/tags/whatever-is-the-term.
We have a high gas tax I believe, yet we don't really have any tolls. I'm not sure if there currently are any. Some newly created things might get tolls (which brings up other issues as they want to have emergency vehicles, like firetrucks, to get past the toll).
I'm thinking more of having a vehicle tax where perhaps the first $10k is exempt. Take the blue book value, subtract $10k, then tax the remaining at a percentage each year.
The thing is, if we don't make the tax progressive like this, the poor cannot necessarily get around, and as such, the economy is going to take a hit. Sometimes things have to be "unfair" to be "fair".
I am not talking about heavily taxing the rich. I am not talking about heavily taxing the poor. I am talking about a compromise.
In all fairness, it would probably be a much wiser decision to do taxes on the vehicle and eliminate fuel taxes altogether. Then we could really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue.
In my state, we have fuel taxes and taxes on vehicles. Of course, the taxes on vehicles are more or less flat, so a vehicle worth $50k will pay the same tax as a vehicle worth $7k.
Depending on the state legislature, it may or may not end up pushing some citizens to contact their state legislators to provide an exemption.
Regardless of whether the law is against him or not, the very fact the state is going to fine him is going to be bad press for the state itself.
It is an unreasonable search. It assumes illegal activity is going on when there may be none. They're fishing for information.
I don't believe the courts have the power to make an order like this, regardless of whether or not it is enforceable.
Actually, by the sounds of this, I think the judge could get impeached. Let us hope the ACLU or someone gets involved.
Trillian is great, and was so at the beginning, but I feel the company has grown too big and they cannot excell as much as they once did.
Here are some options.
Find a lawyer who will sue pro bono.
Find a lawyer who will sue, only getting paid if the case is won. (Even if they take 50%, it is still bringing justice against the company.)
Contact news organizations.
File a complaint against the Labour Board, if someone feels strongly they are not doing their job.
Contact legislators.
Ask friends for ideas on what to do.
(On a side note, I don't drink alcohol.)
The problem is, that if you're using any sort of excuse not to fight the system, the system can use that against you. If someone isn't fighting because they are sick, injured, etc., then it is entirely possible, somehow, for the system to keep that someone down just so they cannot rise up.
Fortunately, we don't have to fight ourselves. We have other people there to do the things we cannot do without severe exhaustion.
I for one won't stand for defemation of character, if it were to happen to me. If I feel I'm being wronged, and if I firmly and absolutely believe I'm in the right, I won't let the issue drop, regardless of how easy it may be to deal with it by just accepting the events.
Of course, there are other "interesting" ways to deal with being wronged. One way is to fight it in another ways. Contacting politicans, the ACLU, etc., until something is done. I find signing one's name to something, even if it isn't mentioning guilt, is still accepting the blame. (Kind of like when filling out forms, and it asks you if you have ever been convicted or PLEADED NO CONTEST to a crime.)
Isn't that called a countersuit when you are the defense, and you want the other side to pay the costs if and when you win?
If you don't mind me saying so, and chances are you're probably going to be offended, but here it goes. It was stupid to sign that, agreeing you will pay. You should have fought the case. It would have been honorable to fight the system. By signing it, weren't you admitting you were in the wrong, not them?
If no one bothers fighting a corrupt system, they are essentially justifying what they are doing. With numbers, the system will change. If everyone who is wronged stands up for what is right, instead of doing what is easy, things will have to change because it is too big to ignore.
Banned at what level, district or state level? If at the state level, do you have the initiative process?
State property is government property, correct?
The government is by, for, and of the people, therefore the government is the people.
Therefore, wouldn't state property be public property in a sense?