Comment: We really don't need to jump through all their hoops

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The situation is quite simple (see in situ)

We really don't need to jump through all their hoops

"It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head." MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.

I think we both understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" is a political allegiance (registering to vote) and that signature can and should be revoked through the Secretary of States Office.

But the BIG picture is that, they are presuming you into an employment position with their corporation; enforcing their internal statutory codes on you, all the while forgetting to pay you for your time.

They are under the presumption we are ALL employees of their criminal-gangster foreign corporation, and you can add anything to one side of an equation, as long as you add it to the other side as well. So presumptions on both sides of the equation are fitting.

They presume we're their employees, and we should also presume we're getting paid for our employment. If they can't rebut our presumption that we are to be receiving pay, then our presumption stands as law, just as their does.

Can the rebut our presumption? Not without putting themselves at risk of a federal lawsuit for a labor management dispute in which they are requiring us to perform some function of government without pay.

Who do you think will win the war of presumptions when the cards fall?