this case is in it's 9th year an has been touched upon briefly on and off.. the latest from the federal court is that all gated communites in puerto rico have until april 23 to provide the watchtower corporation full access.... this means the entry code or remote control devices that open the front fence.. this is clearly an act of provocation in order to create "pseudo-persecution" thereby increasing fs hours and "voluntary donations"....
All american courts are a sham
What's the point you are trying to make? The appeals court doesn't give a shit about JWs. There is no political or financial incentive for the decision. The most likely reason for the decision is that they are trying to apply the constitution to a difficult case. Why is it a sham just because they reached an arguably poor decision that you don't agree with?
this case is in it's 9th year an has been touched upon briefly on and off.. the latest from the federal court is that all gated communites in puerto rico have until april 23 to provide the watchtower corporation full access.... this means the entry code or remote control devices that open the front fence.. this is clearly an act of provocation in order to create "pseudo-persecution" thereby increasing fs hours and "voluntary donations"....
It actually wasn't the Puerto Rico court that decided to let them in. If I recall from following this, the Puerto Rico federal judge ruled against the Watchtower and they appealed to the federal appeals court based in Boston (which, agree with the decision or not, is definitely a credible court). The appeals court ruled in favor of the WT and sent it back to PR district court to basically work out the smaller details. Apparently they don't have to hand over the codes/keys to the WT if they have a manned security gate where a guard can let them in. Turning over the codes seems like a terrible idea. I guess the HOAs will probably choose to hire more guards which will drive everyone's cost up.
i've heard both.
i dunno.
which one is it?.
They can be a nonprofit without being tax exempt under 501(c)(3). It appears that they incorporated as a nonprofit, so I don't think they would be misrepresenting by calling themselves such. One of the main disadvantages of not being a 501(c)(3) is that contributors cannot make tax deductions for contributions.
Any nonprofit that wants to sustain itself long-term from public donations is obviously well served by obtaining tax exempt status. People are often willing to give more if they are getting a tax break. But even if they don't have tax exempt statuts, it doesn't mean they have to pay taxes on everything coming in the door. It would depend where it's coming from and what they are doing with it.
i am an inactive jw.
i havent been on this forum for a few months and have been lurking in others.
i have met a few people in real life and online, both on this forum and on others.
I disagree with anyone who feels that Simon's moderation of this forum is abusive in any way. I've been mostly just watching the AAWA stuff unfold, and I don't think Simon said anything negative about AAWA until Cedars tried to orchestrate the locking of a thread on this site after he got what was intended to be the last word in. I don't blame Simon for taking umbrage at such an attempt to hijack this forum. IMO it came across as very high-handed and sadly seems to be exemplary of the tactics of the leadership there.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/teen-witness-must-have-a-transfusion-rules-judge-20130417-2i0lc.html.
summary:.
17 year old jw has been ordered by the court to undergo a transfusion if his doctors deem it necessary.
Hopefully this kid will make it and think about things by his 18th birthday. In the U.S., a judge would probably not force the transfusion upon a 17 year-old unless the kid was not very articulate about why he wants to refuse blood.
I think it originated as a legitimate doctrinal belief from a bygone era. They have no interest in changing it now because while bizarre, it is probably not even in the 10 doctrines they take the most heat for, so there would be little benefit from backtracking while adding to the long list of reversed doctrines.
here's the thing,.
the whole aawa idea had noble ideas behind it, but the ship has sailed and the movement needs to go back to the drawing board.
period.
You're probably right. The Arizona Corporation Commission wouldn't know dick about Arizona corporate law
I may regret this since the previous discussion was shut down, but how do you not realize that the e-mail posted elsewhere from the Arizona Corporation Commission was a stock answer that in no way responded to any specific facts from the filing in question?
my computer crashed so i am not fully informed of the recent antiwatchtower organization.
i must vent, however.
perhaps i am the only one on the face of the earth (or the entire universe) but i found cedar's opening announcement insulting.
"I am sure they are sour"
-Aesop
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosion_n_3086665.html.
.
right at the finish line - seems too coincidental to be anything other than a purposeful act.
Why would you make this about an opportunity to rip Obama, moron?
Go troll on Topix or something.
i guess we're persona non grata now.
take a look at what i found on facebook:.
we're firing up the grill again!
Chaserious said
"In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not."
fizzywidget said:
"Certain", are you? NOW who's full of conjecture and speculation? How, pray tell, might you be "certain" of that? (As it happens, you would be dead wrong.)"
Well, when you finish your meal and eventually happen back here, maybe you can explain what your research into Arizona law showed about the ability to use a pseudonym. For example, should I assume that in your research you came across State v. Carroll, where the Arizona Appeals Court said:
"The common law gives a person the right to assume a name not given him by his parents and allows him to make valid contracts using the assumed name . . . The Arizona Supreme Court has long recognized that an assumed name is not ‘fictitious' in the sense of being a false pretense . We cannot, therefore, agree with the State's position that signing the check with the assumed name is sufficient to establish a false pretense . . . ."
So, did you find out in your legal research whether Cedars might qualify as an "assumed name" under Arizona law?
You might be right that they were not allowed to incorporate in this manner. I am not inclined to spend a lot of time researching whether that is the case or not. But I don't think anyone in this thread has the expertise to make the conclusive legal opinions that have been expressed about whether an illegal act was committed or not.
