Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

AOLs terms of service amount notice to the user that AOL looks for illegal email content and reports it. Therefore, he lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy and he consented to AOL turning them over to NCMEC. [B]y agreeing to AOLs terms of service, DiTomasso consented to a search of his AOL emails by law enforcement, thereby waiving his Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. DiTomasso, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152505 (S.D. N.Y. October 28, 2014) (Note: This conclusion was not arrived at easily.):

DiTomasso has an AOL email account frankieinnyc1@aol.com. When AOL users send or receive emails that contain attachments, AOL runs two background monitoring systems designed to scan for illicit material, including, but not limited to, child pornography. The programs work by assigning hash numbers to image and video files. In essence, hash numbers are unique number-strings that can be used to archive packets of data fingerprint[s] for electronic media.

AOL employs two different hashing programs. The first the Image Detection and Filtering Process (IDFP) sweeps for one-to-one matches with known child pornography. If an attached file is a one-to-one match, the email is quarantined i.e., diverted from the recipients inbox and an automatic report is generated and sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC report).

AOLs second hashing program photoDNA looks for similarities among hash numbers. If photoDNA identifies an attachment with a hash number close enough to known child pornography to raise alarm, the email is once again quarantined, and an AOL employee reviews the flagged file to confirm the presence of apparent child pornography. Once the presence of apparent child pornography is confirmed, the employee submit[s] a [NCMEC report], and the files hash number is entered into the IDFP database.

On August 17, 2012, two emails intended for frankieinnyc1@aol.com were hashed and quarantined, giving rise to two corresponding NCMEC reports. The first email, which formed the basis of NCMEC report #1560137, was hashed using photoDNA and its contents were reviewed by an AOL employee.10 The second email, which formed the basis of NCMEC report #1558963, was hashed using IDFP. No AOL employee reviewed its contents.

B. AOLs Privacy Policy

At the time of the disputed searches, AOLs privacy policy and terms of use required users to assent to the following conditions. First, they forbade users from post[ing] content that contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts or is threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of anothers privacy, or tortious. Second, AOLs terms provided that AOL reserves the right to take any action it deems warranted in response to illegal behavior, including terminat[ing] accounts and cooperat[ing] with law enforcement. Third, AOLs terms made clear that if users disclose information about [themselves] publicly others outside of AOL may obtain access to [such] information, and furthermore, that AOL itself may disclose to others including law enforcement information [that is] relevant to a crime that has been or is being committed.

. . .

Third, the government suggests that DiTomasso had no expectation of privacy in his electronic communications because the ISPs responsible for facilitating those communications AOL and Omegle warned him that they might be monitor[ing] his activity. Given DiTomassos clear and explicit notice that AOL reserved the right to . . . disclose[] the content of his communications to law enforcement, if [DiTomasso used] his email account for illegal activities, and that Omegle was using an automated system to screen [DiTomassos chats] and potentially share [them] with third parties, including law enforcement, the government argues that DiTomasso can claim no reasonable expectation that his emails and chats would not be review[ed].

Along with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, both of whom have addressed variations on this argument,[Warshak and Quon] I conclude that it would subvert the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to understand its privacy guarantee as waivable in the sense urged by the government. In todays world, meaningful participation in social and professional life requires using electronic devices and the use of electronic devices almost always requires acquiescence to some manner of consent-to-search terms. If this acquiescence were enough to waive ones expectation of privacy, the result would either be (1) the chilling of social interaction or (2) the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. Neither result is acceptable.

Originally posted here:
S.D.N.Y.: ‘[B]y agreeing to AOL’s terms of service …



contra dancing holiday: COOK ISLANDS RAROTONGA SINGING BUS DRIVER MAY 2014
TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF THE VIDEO: 1. CLICK ON “GEAR” IN RIGHT HAND CORNER; 2. CLICK ON “1080HD” IN THE OPEN WINDOW; AND 3. WATCH THE “GEAR” TURN UNTIL “HD” POPS UP.

By: RAPHAEL SEMMES

Originally posted here:
contra dancing holiday: COOK ISLANDS RAROTONGA SINGING BUS DRIVER MAY 2014 – Video

A video that emerged over the weekend appears to show Darren Wilson, the cop who fatally shot teenager Michael Brown in a St. Louis suburb in August, telling a citizen he doesn’t have the right to record video of a 2013 encounter.

The details of the entire exchangeare a little murky. But in almost all cases in the United Statesyou actually do have the right to record police and other public officials carrying out their duties.

There are some state wiretapping laws that make it illegal to record audio of people without their consent, but the courts have consistently held that the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to record the police when they’re on the job. The police can’t stop you unless you’re interfering with their work — and they can’t take away your smart phone or delete the recordings just because you took video. Police need a warrant to mess with the content of your cell phone.

The Department of Justice has even officially weighed in on citizen recordings of law enforcement officers. Here’s what it said in a 2012 letter toattorneys for the Baltimore Police Department:

Policies should affirmatively set forth the contours of individuals First Amendment right to observe and record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties. Recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of law enforcement officers.

Obviously, just because you have the right doesn’t mean all law enforcement officials will respect it. But there’s also a growing movement to make sure that police actions are almost always facing the scrutiny of video evidence by use of mandatory body cameras, or “bodycams,” on officers.

The cameras could potentially provide an extra layer of digital oversight over law enforcement behavior — as well as a way for officers to verify their side of the story if a situation gets messy.

In the wake of the Ferguson protests, makers of such deviceshave seen their business boom.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union is on board with thethe useof bodycams, albeit with a fewcaveats about data retention and privacy implications. “Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers,” the group said in a 2013 policy paper.

Andrea Peterson covers technology policy for The Washington Post, with an emphasis on cybersecurity, consumer privacy, transparency, surveillance and open government.

Read the original here:
Yes, you have a right to record the police.

(PRWEB) November 15, 2014

The SEO Consultancy Ltd firm has just published an updated version of its free downloadable guide on the topic of choosing the right SEO services. This guide was previously available to download or read on the firms website. However it was taken down to be revised and make sure that is only includes the most relevant information pertaining to this topic in 2014 and beyond, as opposed to including legacy information from the time of its original publication.

The free guide is available to anyone who thinks they would find the information useful and it can be viewed on the relevant page of the website, which is located at the address: http://www.seoconsultancyltd.com/choosing-right-seo-services/. The new version of the guide now includes a video as well as the standard textual content, although the written content and format has been updated to reflect the ever changing landscape that is website search engine optimization in 2014.

When speaking to one of the editors who worked on the guide, it was revealed how useful this giveaway report has been in landing the agency new clients via the http://www.seoconsultancyltd.com/ website. As we are a digital agency, focused on improving the visibility of websites in the search engines, with the goal of delivering more relevant traffic to online stores and regular websites alike, it should come as no surprise that we get most of our new client enquiries via our own website one of the team at SEO Consultancy Ltd explained. A surprising number of online companies arent sure about hiring the services of an online marketing agency so they often use a search engine to find out how to choose the right SEO service, and more often than not, by searching for that topic, they end up at our website, on the page we publish specifically on his matter he continued to share.

Noticing that many new visitors to their website were arriving via the free online guide, the team at the http://www.seoconsultancyltd.com/seo-agency/ website decided to focus on keeping that page up to date and ensuring it only contained the most relevant and accurate information, in order to reflect the latest guidelines in the fast paced world of search engine optimization.

In the latest version of the document, which recently went live on the website, the content team from the agency have added a series of warnings or typical scams employed by other SEO agencies. We added the warnings and list of things to avoid when selecting a service provider as too many clients were coming to us after having had a bad experience with another SEO firm one of the founders of SEO Consultancy Ltd explained. Hopefully by sharing this information we can help others avoid falling victim to the unscrupulous agencies who unfortunately are still offering their services in abundance, even today the continued.

With a free guide proving a popular way to generate more traffic to their website, and giving them an opportunity to offer real value to prospective clients, the team at the SEO Consultancy Ltd have plans in the works for adding even more guides and free reports to their website.

Read the rest here:
The SEO Consultancy Ltd Agency Has Published an Updated Guide to Choosing the Right SEO Services

By William Bennett Turner

William Bennett Turner teaches First Amendment courses at UC Berkeley, and is the author of ‘Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains’ (2011).

The biggest vote-getter on the Nov. 4 ballot in Berkeley was not the tax on sugary soda, which got 75% of the vote and national attention. Nor was it a candidate for any office. It was Proposition P, which called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. Prop P got 85% of the vote.

The proposition was, as California propositions go, remarkably simple. It asked if the United States Constitution should be amended to abolish the concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech. (Berkeleyans have rarely been bothered that their principled positions on national and international affairs have little effect; the proposition was placed on the ballot by the City Council.)

The official ballot argument in favor of Prop P (no opposing argument was submitted) overstated the Citizens United decision by claiming it gave corporations the same rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution as human persons. It mistakenly added that the decision specified that donating unlimited money on campaigns should be considered free speech, and asserted the court had endorsed the slogan money equals speech. The argument ended with a ringing call to abolish corporate personhood.

Citizens United is the most misunderstood decision in the 21st century. That is partly because the opinions in the case ran to 176 pages, and very few people have read them. I doubt anyone on the Berkeley City Council has read them.

As it happens, on election day I was teaching the decision in my First Amendment class at UC Berkeley. I felt obligated to tell the students some of the ways Citizens United has been mischaracterized.

First, it did not give corporations the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as natural persons. It didnt give them the right to vote, or the right to contribute directly to a candidate. Nor did it invent the concept of corporate personhood. That was done peremptorily by the court in a railroad case in 1886, without any argument, discussion or analysis. In 1978, the court ruled that political speech in an election did not lose First Amendment protection because of the corporate identity of the speaker, and that became the main theme of Citizens United. The court also protected corporate speech in at least 24 cases before Citizens United, including cases establishing bedrock free speech principles. Those included New York Times v. Sullivan (the right to criticize government without fear of being sued for libel), and the Pentagon Papers case (no prior restraints-type government censorship), both won by the Times corporation.

At this point in our history, abolishing corporate personhood would cause all kinds of mischief. The New York Times and all other media corporations would have no First Amendment rights and could be censored at will. (Relying on the Press Clause of the First Amendment is no answer, because the court has rejected the contention that it gives whoever claims to be the press a difficult definitional question in these days of Fox News, Twitter and bloggers special speech rights not enjoyed by ordinary citizens.) Some Berkeleyans might not be unhappy if government prohibited corporate advertising, thus wiping out the Super Bowl and most media, though few would be pleased if a corporation, not being a person, could not be sued for polluting the environment.

Second, the court did not say money is speech. It simply quoted from its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo to the effect that restricting the amount of money that can be spent in a campaign restricts the quantity and nature of campaign speech. This is self-evident: it costs money to print and distribute flyers and yard signs, rent billboard space, and buy television and radio time; the less money you can spend, the less you can speak. In that sense, the court now treats money as speech, but it doesnt use the slogan simplistically equating the two.

View original post here:
Op-ed: Berkeley overrules Citizens United!



The First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion

By: Shiraz Khan

Follow this link:
The First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion – Video

A man has sued Westminster, claiming his First Amendment rights of free speech were violated when the mayor silenced him during a City Council meeting and had him arrested.

Eric Brandt filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking injunctive relief and compensatory damages and costs, claiming that he has the right to speak about an important public issue: “police abuses.”

“Many officers have arrested him due to their personal dislike of him stemming from the fact that wherever he goes in Westminster, he carries a very large, handmade sign that reads: ‘(Expletive) the cops,’ ” the lawsuit filed by Denver attorney David Lane says.

On Aug. 11, Brandt began to talk of his concerns about the police during a segment of the meeting in which citizens are given five minutes to speak out.

When Brandt began talking about “police brutality,” Mayor Herb Atchison interrupted Brandt and told him to stop talking about police brutality, the lawsuit says.

When Brandt refused to stop speaking about the subject, Atchison ordered Westminster police Officer Paul E. Newton to arrest Brandt.

At that point, Newton arrested Brandt and removed him from the council chambers, the lawsuit says.

Brandt was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer, which were later dismissed, the lawsuit says.

“He was denied his rights under the First Amendment as he was arrested in retaliation for his protected speech and he was also denied the right to petition his government for redress of grievances,” the lawsuit says.

Kirk Mitchell: 303-954-1206, kmitchell@denverpost.com or twitter.com/kirkmitchell, denverpost.com/coldcases

More here:
Man sues Westminster over his removal from City Council meeting

The activists who tried to keep Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley lost out, but they still pose a real danger.

Fred Prouser/Reuters

The University of California at Berkeley wont rescind its invitation to comedian Bill Maher to speak at its December commencement. Thats a welcome change from the too-familiar practice of surrender to would-be campus-speech monitors. Brandeis rescinded plans to confer an honorary degree on Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the spring of 2014. That same year, protesters prevented commencement addresses by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers, Attorney General Eric Holder at the Oklahoma Police Academy, and IMF head Christine Lagarde at Smith.* In 2013, protests thwarted commencement addresses by World Bank chief Bob Zoellick at Swarthmore. The campus free-speech group FIRE has tallied a total of 95 protests of university speaking invitations just since 2009, 39 of which led to the cancelation of the protested event. Thats twice as many protestsand half again as many cancelationsas in the two decades, from 1987 through 2008, FIRE told The Wall Street Journal.

In Mahers case as in Hirsi Alis, the grounds of complaint was the invitees attitude toward Islam. Maher criticizes all religion, but he has said especially harsh things about Islam. The Berkeley Muslim-students group, backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned Maher as a bigot and racist. On his Friday Real Time program, Bill Maher delivered a scathing reply to the campus protesters. He noted the seeming irony that all this was occurring at Berkeley during the 50th anniversary year of the famed Berkeley Free Speech Movement.

Kudos to Maher for fighting back. When campus speech monitors win, they usually do so by creating an atmosphere so hostile that the invited speaker withdraws himself or herself. Commencement speakers are busy people. They accepted the invitation in the first place as an act of public spirit. If theyre not wanted, well, they have other things to do.

The self-removal of the targeted speaker makes life easier for the conflict-averse university administrator. He can simultaneously appease protesters while insisting to skeptical insiders that the university resolutely condemns intimidation and disruption of campus activities. But if the controversial speaker voluntarily withdraws himself or herselfwell, theres nothing an administrator can do in that case, is there? By declining to withdraw, Maher closed this easy avenue of escape. And to its credit, Berkeley responded to Mahers firmness with equal firmness of its own. On October 29, the administration robustly reaffirmed its commencement invitation:

For many years it has been the responsibility of UC Berkeley undergraduates, through a committee known as the Californians, to select speakers for the universitys commencement ceremonies. In August the Californians chose Bill Maher as the speaker for the December commencement ceremony. However, last night the Californians reconvened without administration participation and came to a decision that the invitation should be rescinded.

The UC Berkeley administration cannot and will not accept this decision, which appears to have been based solely on Mr. Mahers opinions and beliefs, which he conveyed through constitutionally protected speech. For that reason Chancellor Dirks has decided that the invitation will stand, and he looks forward to welcoming Mr. Maher to the Berkeley campus. It should be noted that this decision does not constitute an endorsement of any of Mr. Mahers prior statements: Indeed, the administrations position on Mr. Mahers opinions and perspectives is irrelevant in this context, since we fully respect and support his right to express them. More broadly, this university has not in the past and will not in the future shy away from hosting speakers who some deem provocative.

Berkeley did the right thing, but it offered the wrong explanationand that mistaken explanation raises the chances that the next university may do the wrong thing if it faces some combination of a less self-confident speaker, a better-organized protest, or a less strong-willed university leadership.

The Berkeley statement in support of Mahers commencement address casts the issue as one of content-neutral speech rights. The statement stresses that it regards Mahers opinions and perspectives as irrelevant. Those opinions and perspectives were expressed in constitutionally protected ways, and so the only thing that matters is his right to express them. This is stirring stuff, but its also seriously misleading. Hundreds of millions of Americans express constitutionally protected opinions and perspectives every day. Almost none of them will ever be invited to deliver a commencement address anywhere.

See original here:
The Campus Free-Speech Debates Are About Power, Not Sensitivity



Civil Rights and Civil Liberties – Fifth Amendment – Shh! The Right to Remain Silent
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is a free online course on Janux that is open to anyone. Learn more at http://janux.ou.edu. Created by the University of O…

By: Janux

Read the original post:
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties – Fifth Amendment – Shh! The Right to Remain Silent – Video

Apple and Google have taken steps recently to let users protect information stored on smartphones even from law enforcement. It turns out there may be a fingerprint-sized gap in that plan.

A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled Tuesday that police officers cannot force criminal suspects to divulge cellphone passwords, but they can force them to unlock the phone with a fingerprint scanner.

If applied by other courts, the ruling could become important as more device makers incorporate fingerprint readers that can be used as alternatives to passwords. Apple introduced the technology last year in its iPhone 5S and Samsung included it in its Galaxy S5.

When those phones arrived, lawyers said users might be required to unlock the phones with their fingerprints. More recently, Apple and Google said they had changed the encryption scheme on the newest phones using their operating systems so that law enforcement cant retrieve the data. FBI Director James Comey criticized the companies, saying were allowing users to place themselves above the law.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to avoid self-incrimination. That includes divulging secret passwords, Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled. But providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the judge said.

The ruling came in the case of David Baust, an emergency-medical-services captain accused of domestic abuse. Police obtained a search warrant for Bausts phone and asked him to unlock it so they could look for video evidence against him. Baust refused, citing the Fifth Amendment and his right to protect his privacy; Baust said police could search for other, embarrassing items on the phone that are unrelated to the case.

In the wake of Judge Fruccis ruling, Baust does not have to provide his password, but he is required to place his finger on his iPhones fingerprint sensor.

Baust planned to comply Friday morning at a police station in Virginia, his lawyer, James Broccoletti said in an interview. The meeting was postponed because the detective needed to attend to a sick child.

Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning instead, but Broccoletti believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password, in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off.

If they are unable to gain access to the phone, prosecutors in the case could appeal the password ruling to the Virginia court of appeals.

Read more:
Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required To Unlock Phone With Fingerprint

Nov 022014



BROWN COUNTY COURTS 2
if YOU TUBE DELETES THIS VIDEO I WILL SUE FOR MY RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH . THE JUDGE NEEDS TO BE STOPPED NOW HE TOOK MY RIGHTS AWAY .

By: JamesD332

Read more:
BROWN COUNTY COURTS 2 – Video

Nov 012014

The Founding Fathers of the United States believed that the rights of the people were granted by God and not by government. These basic God given rights were embodied in the United States Constitution and, the most basic of these rights, were set out in the First Amendment. Our most basic rights are the right of speech, the right of religion and the right of free assembly.

Over the past 25 years, there has been a war waged on religion and that war is being waged, primarily, against Christians and the Christian church. In the most recent attack, the elected officials in the city of Houston, Texas, violated the First Amendment rights of several Houston churches, pastors and congregations because these pastors, churches and congregations disagreed with a new Houston ordinance requiring that all restrooms in all businesses in the city of Houston be gender-neutral. Apparently, the Houston mayor and city council believe that pastors, churches and congregations can speak freely so long as they agree with the city council.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

To become a new online only subscriber, please choose this option. By doing so, you will first proceed to a registration form. Upon completion of the registration form you will then continue by completing the subscription form. For assistance please call 218-326-6623 or email subscriptions@grandrapidsheraldreview.net Thank you.

Please note – If you have already registered during a previous visit to this web site go to directly to the login button at the top right and then proceed to the subscription form. *Visa or MasterCard orders only

To become a new online only subscriber, and have your payment automatically charged every four weeks, please choose this option. By doing so, you will first proceed to a registration form. Upon completion of the registration form you will then continue by completing the subscription form. For assistance please call 218-326-6623 or email subscriptions@grandrapidsheraldreview.net Thank you.

Please note – If you have already registered during a previous visit to this web site go to directly to the login button at the top right and then proceed to the subscription form. *Visa or MasterCard orders only

To become a new print and online subscriber, please choose this option. By doing so, you will first proceed to a registration form. Upon completion of the registration form you will then continue by completing the subscription form. For assistance please call 218-326-6623 or email esnacctdisp@chespub.com Thank you.

Please note – If you have already registered during a previous visit to this web site go to directly to the login button at the top right and then proceed to the subscription form. *Visa or MasterCard orders only

If you are a current print subscriber and would like to add Online Access to your subscription package, please choose this option. By doing so, you will first proceed to a registration form. Please note, you must provide a current Account Number for your subscription. Enter your account number including the leading “0″: 0123456. For assistance please call 218-326-6623 or email subscriptions@grandrapidsheraldreview.net Thank you.

Original post:
Our First Amendment rights



How the Left and Right Strawman Libertarianism: Honest Liberals are Actually Libertarians
Honest liberals are just libertarians. So are honest paleocons. In fact most people are libertarians, which is why the two parties straw man it- if people knew what libertarianism actually…

By: Styxhexenhammer666

See the original post here:
How the Left and Right Strawman Libertarianism: Honest Liberals are Actually Libertarians – Video



Maui GMO Initiative – Quieting the Opposition
It is clear that one of the tactics of the anti GMO crowd is to silence the opposition through any means necessary. Even if that means trampling on the right to free speech.

By: Maui Girl

Continued here:
Maui GMO Initiative – Quieting the Opposition – Video

Oct 292014

I, like the vast majority of Chambers County residents, believe that our Second Amendment right to bear arms is unalienable and given to us by God, not the government. It is sacred to many of us, and we will fight to protect it.

Today is the day when we need to stand up for this right. Democrat House District 23 candidate Susan Criss wants to restrict these rights and make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own firearms in Chambers County.

kAmrC:DD :D 2=D@ 282:?DE 4@>>@?D6?D6 @A6? 42CCJ =68:D=2E:@?[ 3FE[ >@DE 5:DEFC3:?8=J[ 25G@42E6D 7@C >@C6 DEC:?86?E 3246 A@=:4:6D AFD965 3J q2C242]k^Am

kAmw6C @AA@?6?E #6AF3=:42? (2J?6 u2:C4=@E9[ @? E96 @E96C 92?5[ :D DEC@?8=J 6?5@CD65 3J E96 }2E:@?2= #:7=6 pDD@4:2E:@? 2?5 %6I2D $E2E6 #:7=6 pDD@4:2E:@?] (2J?6 8C6H FA 9F?E:?8 2?5 7:D9:?8 :? r92>36CD r@F?EJ 2?5 D92C6D @FC G2=F6D] w6 H:== ?@E @?=J AC@E64E @FC 8F? C:89ED[ 3FE 2=D@ 96=A 6?24E A@=:4:6D E92E 2==@H FD E@ 36EE6C AC@E64E @FCD6=G6D]k^Am

kAm(6 ?665 E@ >2236CD r@F?EJ :D ?E C6AC6D6?E65 3J D@>6@?6 H9@ D92C6D E96 D2>6 G:6HD C682C5:?8 E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E 2D q2C242] }@H :D E96 E:>6 E@ DE2?5 FA 2?5 7:89E] x 9@A6 E92E J@F H:== 42DE 2 G@E6 7@C (2J?6 u2:C4=@E9 D@ E92E H6 42? 92G6 D@>6@?6 2E E96 DE2E6 42A:E@= 5676?5:?8 @FC G2=F6D]k^Am

kAmkDEC@?8m%2>>J y6?<:>

kAmkDEC@?8mr92>36CD r@F?EJk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAmkDEC@?8m#6AF3=:42? !2CEJk^DEC@?8mk^Am

kAmkDEC@?8mk^DEC@?8mk^Am

See the article here:
Protect Second Amendment



SE01-12 Religion and the Right to Religious Freedom
Season 1 Episodes 12: On Cult, Religion and the Right to Religious Freedom Host : Arlene Tan Guest : – Dr. Faizal Musa – UKM, Lecturer Listen to our show at http://durianasean.com Like us…

By: DurianAsean TV

Go here to see the original:
SE01-12 Religion and the Right to Religious Freedom – Video



EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES AMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT. UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL SEARCH.

By: Wheel Dynaimcs

Go here to see the original:
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN’S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT – Video

By Peter Campbell for the Daily Mail

Published: 01:17 EST, 20 October 2014 | Updated: 01:35 EST, 20 October 2014

The campaign to make corporations tax affairs more transparent has received a boost after a FTSE 100 firm vowed to be completely open about its finances.

Energy giant SSE will today become the first big company in Britain to qualify for the Fair Tax Mark, which was launched earlier this year to encourage firms to disclose whether they use tax havens or avoidance schemes.

The company paid 430m of corporation tax in the UK last year. SSE boss Alistair Phillips-Davies said the company has a responsibility to contribute to the societies in which it operates.

Boost:Energy giant SSE will become the first big company in Britain to qualify for the Fair Tax Mark

He added the firm seeks to pay the right amount of corporation tax at the right time, in the right place and explain how it does it.

Richard Murphy, director at the Fair Tax Mark, said: Today is a major breakthrough for the campaign for responsible tax behaviour. Corporation tax avoidance costs the UK economy billions a year money needed to support vital health, education and social security services in this country.

Energy companies tend to incur big tax bills.

Centrica, the owner of British Gas, is one of the largest tax-contributing companies in the UK, and last year paid more than 1bn to HMRC.

Read more from the original source:
Campaign to make corporations' tax affairs more transparent receives boost after SSE vows to be completely open about …



Houston SEO Company ProEngage SEO Services Company
http://www.houston-seo-company.com/ A short Houston SEO Company slide show video with music designed to show how ProEngage – Houston SEO Company is the right choice for Houston TX small …

By: ProEngage SEO Websites LLC

Link:
Houston SEO Company ProEngage SEO Services Company – Video



Jarrod Jackson Values Commercial
Jarrod Jackson is the RIGHT choice for Western KY. Commercial Paid for by Candidate. Gun owner who staunchly supports the Second Amendment protections afforded to gun owners Son of…

By: Jackson for KY House

View post:
Jarrod Jackson Values Commercial – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com