Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Social Security Benefits:

Expand Messages
  • Dave Miner
    Tim -- You are quite correct. Allow me to add some detail. There was never a court case filed. His dad filed an EEOC complaint in 1993 against Taco Bell. The
    Message 1 of 54 , Apr 2, 2006
      Tim --

      You are quite correct. Allow me to add some detail.

      There was never a court case filed. His dad filed an EEOC complaint in 1993
      against Taco Bell. The Justice Department filed a brief in favor of the
      family, claiming it was illegal discrimination against Americans and in
      favor of foreigners because the only people in America REQUIRED to have an
      SSN were foreigners. To require an SSN in order to hire someone was a form
      of illegal discrimination against individual Americans exercising their
      right to not have the number.

      Part of the "settlement" was to give out a 2 page description of why
      employees did not need a SSN or federal withholding to all management
      applicants, and to modify the application for rank and file employees to put
      the word "voluntary" in the block for SSN.

      The dad's name was Arthur Thomas, of Cincinnati, and the son was Arthur, Jr.

      There was, however, a court case out of Dallas from 1992 that covered the
      same issues with almost the same result. It was EEOC v Information Systems
      Consulting.

      Yours in financial freedom,

      Dave Miner
      www.IRx-Solutions.com


      -----Original Message-----
      From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Costello
      Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:27 PM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Social Security Benefits:

      Not true.

      They actually settled out of court for things not released and then Taco
      Bell rehired him. Of course he did not want the job then.

      It was actually an Ohio case.

      Tim

      jdsoder wrote:
      > They won't let you work without showing it,
      >
      > This is true, however, this will also set them up for a wicked law
      > suit, their is a Taco Bell suit where a young lad got 9 million for
      > this same behavior from Pepsi Cola who owned Taco Bell, I don't have
      > this case if anyone finds it please send it. It is a California case.






      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Why would one need a passport, as opposed to just desiring the convenience it may afford? Most countries have provisions for accepting foreigners
      Message 54 of 54 , May 27, 2006
        On May 2, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Grant Innes wrote:

        > The problem is that a certificate may be needed by the child in the
        > future, for example, getting a passport.
        >

        Why would one "need" a passport, as opposed to just desiring the
        convenience it may afford? Most countries have provisions for
        accepting foreigners without them having a passport. A passport just
        means that the current US regime will vouch for you to a foreign
        government. People who are not foreign to that particular government
        can do the same thing. The USA may be respected somewhere still, but
        usually a country respects its own citizens more. With most countries,
        an invitation to visit from one of their nationals, plus that person's
        agreement to be responsible for you while you are there, is enough.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.