Connect with us

Uncategorized

Godlike Productions – Membership Contract

Published

on


You are attempting to enter a Private Virtual Country Club.

Entrance to this private establishment requires membership but not an account.

Membership Contract:

• You Contractually Agree that you are at least 18 years of age and that you are accessing this website for personal use only.

• You Contractually Agree that you wish to join as a member to this private establishment and that any communication taking place here is considered private communication between members which you agree not to publicly disclose or disseminate.

• You are responsible for all activity that occurs under your IP Address and device on this website, including your conduct and any User Content you provide or that you allow others to provide under your IP Address and device.

• You will not use this website to harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate another person, government, or legal entity.

• You will not use this website to promote, recruit for, or organize any real life group, political or otherwise.

• You will not provide, submit or otherwise make available any content that is unlawful, hateful, harmful, racist, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, or otherwise illegal.

• You will not provide, submit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, “junk mail,” “spam,” “chain letters,” “pyramid schemes,” “affiliate links” or any other form of solicitation.

• You will not violate any local laws in your jurisdiction (including, but not limited to, hate speech and intellectual property laws).

• You will not use our Site for any illegal or unauthorized purpose.

• You will not access, “hack,” alter or otherwise use any part of the Site in any unauthorized manner.

• You will not utilize any software bugs, robots, web spiders, or other such technological device to automaticly access, extract, collect, harvest, archive, screeen shot, or preserve in any way data or information contained on the Site.

• You understand and agree that your membership to this private establishment can be revoked by this website’s staff at any time for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all.

You understand and accept that this website uses cookies.

• You Contractually Agree to a Class Action Waiver: Except as otherwise required under applicable law, You agree that you will not assert class action or representative action claims against this website,
its owners, users, or representatives, whether in arbitration or otherwise, which actions are hereby waived; and you shall only submit your own, individual claims and will not seek to represent the interests of any other person.

• You Contractually Agree that: (i) this Website shall be deemed solely based in the country of Jersey; and (ii) this Website shall be deemed a passive website that does not give rise to personal jurisdiction over this website,
either specific or general, in jurisdictions other than the country of Jersey.
Unless prohibited by local law, these Terms of Service shall be governed by the internal substantive laws of the Country of Jersey, without respect to its conflict of laws principles. Unless prohibited by local law,
any claim or dispute between you and this website that arises in whole or in part from this Website shall be decided exclusively by a court of competent jurisdiction located in the country of Jersey.

• You Contractually Agree to abide by and be bound by the additional terms of service, disclaimer,
and privacy policy found in the footer of this website.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton Blames Russia and Facebook for 2016 Loss, Says She’d Win in 2020

Published

on

Hillary Clinton Blames Russia and Facebook for 2016 Loss, Says She'd Win in 2020


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed her defeat in the 2016 presidential race on “the Russians” and “WikiLeaks” while touting that she would be President Donald Trump if she was on the ballot in November in a recent interview.

Although Clinton will not be on the ballot in November and said she doesn’t plan on running for president again, she told The Hollywood Reporter that she would beat Trump in 2020 if they were facing off again.

“Yes, but I think people believe that this is a referendum on him,” the former first lady said.

Clinton’s documentary series “Hillary” started streaming on Hulu on March 6, and Critics’ Choice Real TV Awards this week named it the Best Limited Documentary Series of the year.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg asked the 72-year-old Democrat if she was ever afraid Trump would actually “lock her up,” as crowds chanted at some of his rallies in relation to her email scandal.

TRENDING: Fox News Fires Veteran Anchor After Sexual Misconduct Allegation

“You know, I’ve never done anything wrong,” Clinton responded.

“I’m, you know, as some people like to say, the most investigated, exonerated person in recent history.”

She added, “But if he could have found anything that he thought could impose some kind of cost on me — because, at the root of this, Scott, is he fears that his win — that narrow win in the Electoral College — was not legitimate.”

Do you think Clinton would beat Trump in 2020?

Clinton said that Trump “knows” the Russians and WikiLeaks helped him win in 2016.

“So if he could [have gone after me] … he would have, because he’s a vindictive score-settler and he doesn’t want the legitimacy of his election ever to be questioned, although history will continue to question it,” she said.

The former secretary of state said she believes “in the rule of law” and if there’s evidence that Trump should be investigated after he leaves office, he should be.

Clinton also blamed Facebook for her loss in 2016.

“Facebook has to be held accountable because they trafficked in conspiracy, they trafficked in misinformation, they trafficked in Russian disinformation,” she said.

RELATED: Trump, Prominent Republicans Dismiss Biden’s Lead in Polls

“And they’ve got to be held accountable because we’re gonna have another election, and everybody should know what’s at stake and then cast their vote accordingly.”

Clinton claimed she would also have done a much better job at handling the coronavirus pandemic than Trumphas.

“I don’t think we necessarily should have had as deep an economic assault on livelihoods and jobs as we have,” she said. “So I know I would have done a better job.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.



Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Colorado Court Elaborates the “Reasonable Exercise” Test Under the Colorado Constitution’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Published

on


Article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution reads:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Monday’s decision in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis clarified and summarized the “reasonable exercise” test, which the court had announced in the 1994 Robertson case; recall that state supreme courts are free to interpret their state constitutions as more protective than the federal Constitution, as protective, or less protective (though they must also enforce the federal Constitution, when litigants ask them to do so):

[T]he reasonable exercise test [set forth in the 1994 Robertson precedent] demands that government enactments implicating the article II, section 13 right [to keep and bear arms] have a legitimate government end within the police power, such as promoting the public health, safety, or welfare. And as its name suggests, it requires a “reasonable” fit between purpose and means. But in the article II, section 13 context, the ultimate function of the reasonable exercise test is to effectuate the substantive constraints imposed by article II, section 13 on otherwise rational government regulation.

Reflecting that function, the article II, section 13 reasonable exercise testunlike ordinary rational basis reviewdemands not just a conceivable legitimate purpose but an actual one. And, importantly, it does not tolerate government enactments that have either a purpose or effect of rendering the right to bear arms in self-defense a nullity. In short, the reasonable exercise test permits restrictions that may burden the right to bear arms but that still leave open ample means to exercise the core of that right; on the other hand, the test forbids restrictions that are so arbitrary or onerous as to amount to a denial of the right.

These features of the reasonable exercise test are apparent from our earliest application of article II, section 13. In Nakamura, the challenged legislation prohibited unnaturalized foreign-born residents from hunting any wild bird or animal except “in defense of persons or property” and, “to that end,” made it “unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident … to either own or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle of any make, or a pistol or firearm of any kind.” We acknowledged that the state’s identified interests were permissible ones: “[t]he state may preserve its wild game for its citizens” and “prevent the hunting and killing of same by aliens.” But we struck down the law nonetheless, reasoning that it was apparent that it was actually “designed to prevent possession of firearms by aliens, as much, if not more, than the protection of wild game within the state.”

Importantly, we found it “equally clear” that the act had the effect of “wholly disarm[ing] aliens for all purposes.” We held that the state “cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article 2 of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person, and property.” In other words, “[t]he police power of a state … cannot be exercised in such manner as to work a practical abrogation of its provisions.”

Our later cases just as clearly demonstrate the independent bite of the reasonable exercise test. In Blue, we held that a statute prohibiting individuals with prior felony convictions from possessing weapons was a constitutional exercise of the police power under article II, section 13. “To be sure,” we explained, “the state legislature cannot, in the name of the police power, enact laws which render nugatory our Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.” But we did not read the felon-in-possession statute “as an attempt to subvert the intent of [article II, section 13].”. And in Ford, an as-applied challenge to the same statute, we expressly stated that “the specific limitations of [article II, section 13] must be superimposed on the statute’s otherwise valid language,” and that a state may “validly restrict or regulate the right to possess arms where the purpose of such possession is not a constitutionally protected one” such as defense of home, person, or property. see also City of Lakewood v. Pillow (Colo. 1972) (striking down ordinance that made it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for purpose of self-defense).

[I]n Robertson, we again explicitly noted that the right to bear arms in self-defense under article II, section 13 could be regulated but not prohibited. In upholding the Denver ordinance [that banned so-called “assault weapons” -EV], we looked to evidence confirming the city council’s expressed intent to “promote the health, safety, and security of the citizens of Denver” by “curbing crimeparticularly homicides.” We further relied on evidence that although the city sought to prohibit the possession and use of approximately 40 firearms, closer to 2,000 remained available for purchase and use in the United States. Given this evidence of the “narrow class of weapons regulated by the ordinance,” we had no trouble concluding that it did not “impose such an onerous restriction on the right to bear arms as to constitute an … illegitimate exercise of the state’s police power.”

In sum, under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, the government may regulate firearms so long as the enactment is (1) a reasonable exercise of the police power (2) that does not work a nullity of the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, or property. This test differs from rational basis review in that it requires an actual, not just conceivable, legitimate purpose related to health, safety, and welfare, and it establishes that nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense is neither a legitimate purpose nor tolerable result. In these ways, it ensures that the specifically enumerated “right to bear arms in defense of home, person and property” in article II, section 13 stands as an independent, substantive limitation on otherwise rational government action.

The court went on to apply this to uphold a Colorado statute limiting “large-capacity magazines,” defined as magazines “capable of accepting, or … designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds.” (The court made clear that the magazines had to be designed to be readily converted to do that, and not just capable of being readily converted.) The court didn’t discuss how the statute would be analyzed under the Second Amendment, because plaintiffs had raised only a state constitutional challenge.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Today in Supreme Court History: July 3, 1941

Published

on


Florida Just Passed the Most Sweeping Occupational Licensing Reform in History

The Occupational Freedom and Opportunity Act “will save thousands of Floridians both time and money for years to come,” says Gov. Ron DeSantis.

|

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.