Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They should quit pretending and pass a "right to money" amendment.

 

[Circe]

They should quit pretending and pass a "right to money" amendment.

Wait, are you saying the whole point of the Maine Amendment is to say everyone has to be given food free???

 

[danielpalos]

They should quit pretending and pass a "right to money" amendment.

Right-wingers should stop pretending they care about being Legal to the Law in border threads.

 

[danielpalos]

...equal protection of the laws is already in our Constitutions and can be executed by simple executive order.

 

[struth]

The Court is welcome to decline competence without prejudice due to sovereignty issues in order to move this case to a federal venue for more comprehensive, top-down resolution.

Why wouldn't you just take it to Federal Court to begin with? You don't have to wait on the appeal of your denial of UE insurance if you have a Constitutional issue

 

[danielpalos]

Why wouldn't you just take it to Federal Court to begin with? You don't have to wait on the appeal of your denial of UE insurance if you have a Constitutional issue

It was an appeal from the UI board. Because a State can bear true witness to our at-will employment laws as well. Or, give a Person of the People an explanation why not when he inquires for "oversight" purposes.

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

 

[struth]

It was an appeal from the UI board. Because a State can bear true witness to our at-will employment laws as well. Or, give a Person of the People an explanation why not when he inquires for "oversight" purposes.

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

It was likely appealed there because that's the only place you can appeal a denial of UE insurance. The denial isn't a Constitutional challenge to the law. You can certainly make the issue...but the law is still the law. The Admin hearing you had, the Admin Judge followed the law, and because you simply want money, and were fried for cause, they are following the law...the Superior Court will follow the law as well...as it's still the law.

If you want to challenge the Constitutionality of the law, you need to take it to Federal Court.

 

[danielpalos]

It was likely appealed there because that's the only place you can appeal a denial of UE insurance. The denial isn't a Constitutional challenge to the law. You can certainly make the issue...but the law is still the law. The Admin hearing you had, the Admin Judge followed the law, and because you simply want money, and were fried for cause, they are following the law...the Superior Court will follow the law as well...as it's still the law.

If you want to challenge the Constitutionality of the law, you need to take it to Federal Court.

I can't seem to find any simple rules on that anywhere. I was hoping the State would have informed me of that (instead of simply ignoring my case), or they could have simply dismissed my case due to a lack of jurisdictional competence (with rules on where to take it).

Part of my position is that I cannot afford an attorney due to unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.

 

[struth]

I can't seem to find any simple rules on that anywhere. I was hoping the State would have informed me of that (instead of simply ignoring my case), or they could have simply dismissed my case due to a lack of jurisdictional competence (with rules on where to take it).

Maybe you should have hired a lawyer. It's not really the State's job to hand you everything....you might need to do a little work on your own to find these things.

My state outlines in the State Code....which is available to the public

 

[hadit]

Right-wingers should stop pretending they care about being Legal to the Law in border threads.

This isn't a border thread so why are you wandering off the tracks?

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe you should have hired a lawyer. It's not really the State's job to hand you everything....you might need to do a little work on your own to find these things.

My state outlines in the State Code....which is available to the public

I could not afford an attorney due to unequal protection of the laws which the State has been informed of; thus, appeal to ignorance of the law is not an option for the State.

 

[danielpalos]

This isn't a border thread so why are you wandering off the tracks?

Because, y'all allege to care about being Legal to the Law.

 

[struth]

I could not afford an attorney due to unequal protection of the laws which the State has been informed of; thus, appeal to ignorance of the law is not an option for the State.

what law says you have a right to an attorney in some civil case like this? I don't think the Courts will be appealing to any sort of ignorance of the law here.

 

[danielpalos]

what law says you have a right to an attorney in some civil case like this? I don't think the Courts will be appealing to any sort of ignorance of the law here.

I went forward in propria persona. The Court has no right to appeal to ignorance of the laws.

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

 

[struth]

I went forward in propria persona. The Court has no right to appeal to ignorance of the laws.

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

You have every right to go pro se.....I don't disagree the Court should not appeal to the ignorance of the law....when have they here?

You are getting Due Process...you had a hearing, you lost...now you are appealing...that's Due Process

 

[danielpalos]

You have every right to go pro se.....I don't disagree the Court should not appeal to the ignorance of the law....when have they here?

You are getting Due Process...you had a hearing, you lost...now you are appealing...that's Due Process

This is the specific law in question: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

No Cause is required in an at-will employment State; thus, requiring cause for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of the at the Will of Either party not just the "capitalist" or the State (as the most wealthy under our form of Capitalism) Laws. It is why the social rules of socialism must apply to abridge, deny and disparage any abuse of (social) power by the Government.

The Law must be this Majestic:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[WinterBorn]

I could not afford an attorney due to unequal protection of the laws which the State has been informed of; thus, appeal to ignorance of the law is not an option for the State.

You couldn't afford an attorney because you voluntarily quit your job and have not even looked for one is several years. It is your choices that put you where you are.

 

[danielpalos]

You couldn't afford an attorney because you voluntarily quit your job and have not even looked for one is several years. It is your choices that put you where you are.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

I don't have Standing, without it.

 

[danielpalos]

Will women as a class, be better off or worse off through equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States?

 

[hadit]

Because, y'all allege to care about being Legal to the Law.

It's not a border thread. You're just reciting words you've written so many times you don't even think about them.