Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bonnie]

.

Let's see. This thread is supposed to be about the Smith v. Wal-Mart case, is it not?

Actually wasn't it posted to show your process in a cleaner light and that it would be possible to win against a powerful org. or company?

[Bob Pickle]

Sure. Thanks for the clarification.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

I’m really not sure what direction this crazy “conversation” is going but it seems like a perfect time to ask a question I’ve had for awhile.  Bob, do you post here under another pseudonym?  If so, how many?  To your knowledge, does your partner mr. Joy post under multiple identities here?

I don’t much care either way but some might be interested.  I will however be most interested in how and if you answer.

Dear Maxey,

I have never written nor have I posted under a pseudonym. Here or anywhere else!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Maxey]

I’m really not sure what direction this crazy “conversation” is going but it seems like a perfect time to ask a question I’ve had for awhile.  Bob, do you post here under another pseudonym?  If so, how many?  To your knowledge, does your partner mr. Joy post under multiple identities here?

I don’t much care either way but some might be interested.  I will however be most interested in how and if you answer.

Bob, did you see my question?  Mr. Joy was able to answer concisely.

[Artiste]

And I do not carry on conversations with myself.

Here is your answer, Maxey.  The implications should be clear enough.

This is coming from a Moderator.

[Maxey]

And I do not carry on conversations with myself.

Here is your answer, Maxey.  The implications should be clear enough.

This is coming from a Moderator.

Thank you moderator.  Although I find your message somewhat unclear, I had already accepted that I had Bob's answer on my simple question.  I was just giving him the courtesy of providing clarification if he wished.

Thanks again for you diligence.

[irspro]

Wal-Qaeda.com and Walocaust.com.

Wal-Mart picked on little Charles Smith. He sued, and won.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/WalmartDecision.pdf

Bob, winning the battle is not winning the war!  Do you shop Walmart? Are you aware of any comparative pricing practices? Which commandment?  Are you looking for a bench ruling?  Is Joy looking for a bench ruling.  Per Se with a jury may be smarting?  Who cut the church conduit, you, Joy, or the GC?  Cite me any of your most severly demeaning internet URLs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WMT&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Wal-Qaeda.com and Walocaust.com.

Wal-Mart picked on little Charles Smith. He sued, and won.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/WalmartDecision.pdf

Bob, winning the battle is not winning the war!  Do you shop Walmart? Are you aware of any comparative pricing practices? Which commandment?  Are you looking for a bench ruling?  Is Joy looking for a bench ruling.  Per Se with a jury may be smarting?  Who cut the church conduit, you, Joy, or the GC?  Cite me any of your most severly demeaning internet URLs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WMT&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

"WINNING" can simply be changing the modus operandi from improper to proper. Winning does not require the destruction or dismantling of the functional business, but rather bringing civil behaviour, such as due process and the rights of stockholders, back into the business processes, rather than non-accountability and using the company as your personal piggybank, then not disclosing it to the contributors/stockholders in the pews.

In fact, winning should lead to changes that reflect a growing respect for the neighbors, the neighborhood and those that support you. Winning can come in finally recognizing others their equal rights.

Winning can also mean gaining restitution for those who have been harmed by the administrative conspiracy to gain control or profits at the expense of the victims. And the perfect win would be having the victims even restored to the status they once enjoyed prior to the defamation and violation of due process.

Then, may they do their business in the tranquility of civil process.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[irspro]

Wal-Qaeda.com and Walocaust.com.

Wal-Mart picked on little Charles Smith. He sued, and won.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/WalmartDecision.pdf

Bob, winning the battle is not winning the war!  Do you shop Walmart? Are you aware of any comparative pricing practices? Which commandment?  Are you looking for a bench ruling?  Is Joy looking for a bench ruling.  Per Se with a jury may be smarting?  Who cut the church conduit, you, Joy, or the GC?  Cite me any of your most severly demeaning internet URLs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WMT&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

"WINNING" can simply be changing the modus operandi from improper to proper. Winning does not require the destruction or dismantling of the functional business, but rather bringing civil behaviour, such as due process and the rights of stockholders, back into the business processes, rather than non-accountability and using the company as your personal piggybank, then not disclosing it to the contributors/stockholders in the pews.

In fact, winning should lead to changes that reflect a growing respect for the neighbors, the neighborhood and those that support you. Winning can come in finally recognizing others their equal rights.

Winning can also mean gaining restitution for those who have been harmed by the administrative conspiracy to gain control or profits at the expense of the victims. And the perfect win would be having the victims even restored to the status they once enjoyed prior to the defamation and violation of due process.

Then, may they do their business in the tranquility of civil process.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Brother Joy, you seem too charitable with charities with this statement, "Winning can come in finally recognizing others their equal rights."  I hope you do not mean that "shareholders in the pews rights are only on a par with management rights!"  I didn't have equal rights as a business graduate in mind when the beggers came to our campmeeting.  If you are ony looking for equal rights, I now better understand how many of our members can possibly be so naive!

[irspro]

Wal-Qaeda.com and Walocaust.com.

Wal-Mart picked on little Charles Smith. He sued, and won.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/WalmartDecision.pdf

Bob, winning the battle is not winning the war!  Do you shop Walmart? Are you aware of any comparative pricing practices? Which commandment?  Are you looking for a bench ruling?  Is Joy looking for a bench ruling.  Per Se with a jury may be smarting?  Who cut the church conduit, you, Joy, or the GC?  Cite me any of your most severly demeaning internet URLs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WMT&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

"WINNING" can simply be changing the modus operandi from improper to proper. Winning does not require the destruction or dismantling of the functional business, but rather bringing civil behaviour, such as due process and the rights of stockholders, back into the business processes, rather than non-accountability and using the company as your personal piggybank, then not disclosing it to the contributors/stockholders in the pews.

In fact, winning should lead to changes that reflect a growing respect for the neighbors, the neighborhood and those that support you. Winning can come in finally recognizing others their equal rights.

Winning can also mean gaining restitution for those who have been harmed by the administrative conspiracy to gain control or profits at the expense of the victims. And the perfect win would be having the victims even restored to the status they once enjoyed prior to the defamation and violation of due process.

Then, may they do their business in the tranquility of civil process.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Brother Joy, you seem too charitable with charities with this statement, "Winning can come in finally recognizing others their equal rights."  I hope you do not mean that "shareholders in the pews rights are only on a par with management rights!"  I didn't have equal rights as a business graduate in mind when the beggers came to our campmeeting.  If you are ony looking for equal rights, I now better understand how many of our members can possibly be so naive!

Brother Joy, again I repeat you are being to charitable to charities reporting as a 'REPORTER" rather than as a "shareholder in the pew" where the pew owner has invited you in to be wooed into donating without giving you as much voting power as you have for the local church leadership on a once a year basis and once in five years for the conference leadership.  I could feature a reporter only wanting to be fair to both sides on a 50/50 basis!

Let me humbly request that you change your "reporter hat" and don the "shareholder hat" so that you may not be viewed as being in the "hip pocket of any BOD!" 

[irspro]

.

Let's see. This thread is supposed to be about the Smith v. Wal-Mart case, is it not?

Actually wasn't it posted to show your process in a cleaner light and that it would be possible to win against a powerful org. or company?

Proof that WMT won the war!!!!!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual

WMT (All numbers in thousands)
PERIOD ENDING 31-Jan-08 31-Jan-07 31-Jan-06
Total Revenue 378,799,000   348,650,000   315,654,000  
Cost of Revenue 286,515,000   264,152,000   240,391,000  
 
Gross Profit 92,284,000   84,498,000   75,263,000  
 
 Operating Expenses
 Research Development -   -   -  
 Selling General and Administrative 70,288,000   64,001,000   56,733,000  
 Non Recurring -   -   -  
 Others -   -   -  
 
 Total Operating Expenses -   -   -  
 
 
Operating Income or Loss 21,996,000   20,497,000   18,530,000"  

Regional banks and larger are offering me 1.25% APY higher than local banks where beneficiaries may take trustees to task.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

As to the issue of Eqaul Rights, I refer to the administration and its violation repeatedly with due process. People who work for Non-Profits have the same "due process" rights as any other. And non-profits can be the centerpeice of corruption when abused.

What is clear is that 3ABN and DLS did not have proof of wrongdoing regarding Linda sue Shelton. There have been repeated complaints from women and wrongfully terminated employees regarding DLS violations and the board turns a blind eye. Linda's due process rights were repeatedly violated but Danny has yet to face a single charge. IT IS PAST TIME.

Gailon Arthur Joy