For

Mock if you are uneducated, but the UN is run by neobabylonian, qabalist and freemason freakshows, and they worship androgyne gods, inanna, baphomet and ishtar.  They abuse their position to proselytize their religion upon us. 

Note that in UK saying any criticism of a trans gets you more prison time than an armed robbery.  In Spokane Washington trans men read stories to 3-4 year old tykes, there were mothers with strollers protesting this outside and they literally had SWAT teams pointing guns at the mothers.  Pictures emerged of the trans men rolling on the floor with toddlers in "play".  In a public library.  This is their agenda, it's fact.  All (almost) A-listers are trans today.  They've put it into the public schools, they want AT your children.

They need to be stopped, this is not separation of church and state.

church and state?  They are the ones interested in the trans agenda so much ... they even put it into our laws and public schools....why??? because it's their religion they push on US, it really IS THEIR RELIGION...they also worship Adam Kadmon, a transgender too, "alchemy" has to do with their use of hormones and surgery to become trans, and they push it on all of us, that is evangelical proselytizing and it does not belong in the public square!

they are the worst evangelicals ever!!

The left is pure evil, stripping AA's of their historic rights and stripping them from a minority to a super minority by using the lie that BSTJ has anything to do with foreigners dropping spawn over the border line. 

AA's are now far behind hispanics, demographically, because of this leftwad BSTJ lie.  AA's should class action sue the democrat party for pushing this lie and stripping them of their birthright.  THIS WAS PURE FRAUD BY THE DEMOCRATS, THEY OWE TRILLIONS TO AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR THIS TRAVESTY.

This is easily provable by reading USC1401 and the fact that a child of two foreigners is by law a Citizen of the parents' country.  That child's jurisdiction is Mexico, ETC.  A child of two Mexicans born across the border is a Mexican Citizen by Mexican law, and the US does not recognize dual Citizenships, that child is just a Mexican who happened to be born in the USA.

"Born Subject to Jurisdiction" (BStJ) refers only to children born of former slaves, who were otherwise countryless.  It was written in 1865, post civil war.  It was ONLY for African AMERICANS, not foreigners.

It's utter illogic that the evil illegal left wants you to believe, that BStJ refers to chinese on a pregnancy visa, etc.

The evil left has flooded in so many hispanics that blacks are now a minority to both Whites and hispanics, all based on a lie that BStJ refers to mostly Mexicans.  That means that AA interests are now third in line; before they were the second largest group.

The left stole the authentic history of African Americans for their powerplays.

A baby born of two foreigners inside the USA is not on par with a baby born of a US Citizen; that baby born of foreigners enjoys only its parents Citizenship, that is its jurisdiction.

Just because lefties are stupid doesn't change history.

The law does NOT grant US Citizenship if you have zero US Citizen parentage, born of two foreigners, who pooped a baby out over a border line.  BStJ is not for foreigners.

Or foreigners who squirt out a spawn over the borderline?

Because the 14th was only written for the children of freed slaves.

If you place foreign squat squirts over those with actual history in America, you are a shameful traitor.

You are saying such a child BSTTJ is on par with a foreign squat squirt to run for president. You are wrong.

The 14th granted US Citizenship to children of freed slaves, not guatemalans and chinese on pregnancy tourist visas.

have C+D+E+F+G to perform X.

Is patent Q a prior art conflict for another claim? 

the contractor to take your materials?

My contractor took half my rebar just before the concrete pour, left it out of the forms, and intended to hide the omission under concrete, but we caught him hauling it away.

Some people believe that if it's part of a contract, he could just take it.  That doesn't sound right.  If you paid for it up front, wasn't it "yours"?

it's because I have a contract with said contractor.

SO WHAT?

Why is it they'll cuff someone for taking a red bull from the corner minimart but not for this?  I spoke at length to an officer who said I could write to the prosecutor but they're not going to prosecute this.  WHY?

Narcissists never discuss anything on point either, they attack personally and change the subject, gaslight and misdirect, and project their own culpability on to others.

This is exactly what the left does. So aren't they just DSM psychopaths who should be heavily medicated and put to work recycling trash?

Say there's a patented thing, and you improve it, it works better and is 10 times safer, and cheaper, but it's just a small improvement which nobody saw before.

Actually it's a drug with one cation difference but the efficacy and toxicity is far better. Is this patentable?

For example, say someone sells a formula with 15 compounds in it and says it treats disease X by mechanism Y.

You discover that ONE of the compounds "M" from the compote treats X by mechanism Z, not Y.

So the compote is prior art but does it prevent a patent for "M" to treat X?

In general, if someone patents a compote of 15 compounds for a wide variety of uses, with no designation of 'what does what' and you discover one of the compounds does one particular thing specifically...

can you patent that one compound for that one activity?

Maybe all of his other compounds are inactive except this one, does that box out the discovery patent for the one active?

Is there a legal case where a house is advertised in average condition as a foreclosure, they tell buyer no use getting inspection because foreclosures don't fix problems, they even tell buyer not to cut into floor to inspect because it was recently sealed .... so buyer signs contract with condition waiver and though buyer knew the house needed lots of work and they did work on stripping it out of insulation and bad drywall, was going to put new appliances in, but the house turned out to be condemned, they lied, it was impossible to fix due to structural, sewage, rats, black mold hidden under the floors.

Buyer should have gotten inspection but was swayed against it as newbie.

Which "wins" in court; the "average condition" advertisement or the waiver?

In my state it is ILLEGAL to sell a dangerous manufactured home even if it is sold without any warranties in the contract.

If the buyer was damaged because of having to demolish said home which was actually in condemned condition but advertised as average condition, what does the fact that the sale itself was illegal do for a legal complaint?