Comments for BobGriggs.com http://www.bobgriggs.com "Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do." Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:25:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Gwinnett’s Immigration Enforcement Leaves Much to be Desired by Bannister Fiddles While Gwinnett Burns | TalkGwinnett.com http://www.bobgriggs.com/gwinnetts-immigration-enforcement-leaves-much-to-be-desired/comment-page-1/#comment-2056 Bannister Fiddles While Gwinnett Burns | TalkGwinnett.com Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:25:05 +0000 http://www.bobgriggs.com/?p=432#comment-2056 [...] 1. Require all business license applicants to certify eligibility: The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act (formerly SB529) requires state and local governments to verify that business license applicants are legal residents. Improperly (in my opinion) interpreting the state law, the county only requires sole proprietor and sole member LLC applicants to certify eligibility; partnerships and corporations are exempt from examination. An illegal alien can still receive a business license in Gwinnett simply by putting a second name on the application… no one will check. [Details] [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> Comment on Local “Say ‘Yes’ To America” rally planned by Bannister Fiddles While Gwinnett Burns | TalkGwinnett.com http://www.bobgriggs.com/local-say-yes-to-america-rally-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-2055 Bannister Fiddles While Gwinnett Burns | TalkGwinnett.com Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:20:26 +0000 http://www.bloggwinnett.com/wpblog/bobg/?p=70#comment-2055 [...] May 2006, I conducted a rally in Duluth that drew the attention of local and national media. I personally called on the County Commission [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2055','Bannister Fiddles While Gwinnett Burns | TalkGwinnett.com'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2055','Bannister Fiddles While Gwinnett Burns | TalkGwinnett.com','[...] May 2006, I conducted a rally in Duluth that drew the attention of local and national media. I personally called on the County Commission [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] May 2006, I conducted a rally in Duluth that drew the attention of local and national media. I personally called on the County Commission [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> Comment on Barnett Wins, MALDEF and Invaders Lose by Betsy Ross http://www.bobgriggs.com/barnett-wins-maldef-and-invaders-lose/comment-page-1/#comment-2053 Betsy Ross Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:14:58 +0000 http://www.bobgriggs.com/?p=573#comment-2053 After reading much of the reports on this case, I wouldn't call this a win in any manner whatsoever. As a former 45 year Arizonan in the details, this was a political action from it's outset. Why this case went to trial, I will never know. Not only did that defense attorney not assert the property defense, i.e., lack of any legal "standing" for these non-Americans as the primary thrust of his arguments, he actually applauded the judge involved, the judge who awarded the over $70,000 in this case on a claimed "civil right" violation of these Mexican nationals. MALDEF is also a federally funded organization, and there were NINE attorneys bringing this action under the federal statute that the ACLU "bought" providing for attorneys fees and costs to be paid by the U.S. taxpayer's for any and all civil rights actions. Knowing the tenor in Arizona by the majority of the citizenry there over their abuse and victimization due to the federal government's negligence in adequately securing our southern border, I would really like to have seen the "voir dire" of these attorneys for that jury selection. This was purely political in order to continue to set precedence in the allowance of noncitizens to use our courts and further abuse the lawful citizenry over the unlawful. I don't know if Mr. Barrett was a willing participant in this charade of a "judgement" and legal proceeding, or merely used by all these attorneys and that judge for their own ulterior motives. Another attack on our Constitution, with the ursurpers winning over the founders. "We the people of the United States.....FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY....do hhereby establish and ordain this Constitution of the United States. What could be clearer than that....foreigners have no inherent standing nor "civil" rights at all unless and until they swear allegiance to this country, and attain citizenship. What a travesty, and our government at all levels is truly out of control, and the attorneys in this country need some sort of regulation other than self-regulation as it appears that definitely is not working on any level.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2053','Betsy Ross'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2053','Betsy Ross','After reading much of the reports on this case, I wouldn\'t call this a win in any manner whatsoever. As a former 45 year Arizonan in the details, this was a political action from it\'s outset. Why this case went to trial, I will never know. Not only did that defense attorney not assert the property defense, i.e., lack of any legal \"standing\" for these non-Americans as the primary thrust of his arguments, he actually applauded the judge involved, the judge who awarded the over $70,000 in this case on a claimed \"civil right\" violation of these Mexican nationals. MALDEF is also a federally funded organization, and there were NINE attorneys bringing this action under the federal statute that the ACLU \"bought\" providing for attorneys fees and costs to be paid by the U.S. taxpayer\'s for any and all civil rights actions. \r\n\r\nKnowing the tenor in Arizona by the majority of the citizenry there over their abuse and victimization due to the federal government\'s negligence in adequately securing our southern border, I would really like to have seen the \"voir dire\" of these attorneys for that jury selection. This was purely political in order to continue to set precedence in the allowance of noncitizens to use our courts and further abuse the lawful citizenry over the unlawful.\r\n\r\nI don\'t know if Mr. Barrett was a willing participant in this charade of a \"judgement\" and legal proceeding, or merely used by all these attorneys and that judge for their own ulterior motives.\r\n\r\nAnother attack on our Constitution, with the ursurpers winning over the founders.\r\n\r\n\"We the people of the United States.....FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY....do hhereby establish and ordain this Constitution of the United States.\r\n\r\nWhat could be clearer than that....foreigners have no inherent standing nor \"civil\" rights at all unless and until they swear allegiance to this country, and attain citizenship.\r\n\r\nWhat a travesty, and our government at all levels is truly out of control, and the attorneys in this country need some sort of regulation other than self-regulation as it appears that definitely is not working on any level.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> After reading much of the reports on this case, I wouldn’t call this a win in any manner whatsoever. As a former 45 year Arizonan in the details, this was a political action from it’s outset. Why this case went to trial, I will never know. Not only did that defense attorney not assert the property defense, i.e., lack of any legal “standing” for these non-Americans as the primary thrust of his arguments, he actually applauded the judge involved, the judge who awarded the over $70,000 in this case on a claimed “civil right” violation of these Mexican nationals. MALDEF is also a federally funded organization, and there were NINE attorneys bringing this action under the federal statute that the ACLU “bought” providing for attorneys fees and costs to be paid by the U.S. taxpayer’s for any and all civil rights actions.

Knowing the tenor in Arizona by the majority of the citizenry there over their abuse and victimization due to the federal government’s negligence in adequately securing our southern border, I would really like to have seen the “voir dire” of these attorneys for that jury selection. This was purely political in order to continue to set precedence in the allowance of noncitizens to use our courts and further abuse the lawful citizenry over the unlawful.

I don’t know if Mr. Barrett was a willing participant in this charade of a “judgement” and legal proceeding, or merely used by all these attorneys and that judge for their own ulterior motives.

Another attack on our Constitution, with the ursurpers winning over the founders.

“We the people of the United States…..FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY….do hhereby establish and ordain this Constitution of the United States.

What could be clearer than that….foreigners have no inherent standing nor “civil” rights at all unless and until they swear allegiance to this country, and attain citizenship.

What a travesty, and our government at all levels is truly out of control, and the attorneys in this country need some sort of regulation other than self-regulation as it appears that definitely is not working on any level.

Reply – Quote
]]> Comment on E-Verify: Know the Truth by BobG http://www.bobgriggs.com/e-verify-know-the-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-2049 BobG Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:26:53 +0000 http://www.bobgriggs.com/?p=163#comment-2049 If the number was issued to a non-existent person, then there should be no activity on it other than your own. Hopefully, the SSN will see that and realize the error. Good luck in getting it straightened out.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2049','BobG'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2049','BobG','If the number was issued to a non-existent person, then there should be no activity on it other than your own. Hopefully, the SSN will see that and realize the error. Good luck in getting it straightened out.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> If the number was issued to a non-existent person, then there should be no activity on it other than your own. Hopefully, the SSN will see that and realize the error. Good luck in getting it straightened out.
Reply – Quote
]]> Comment on E-Verify: Know the Truth by kckepler http://www.bobgriggs.com/e-verify-know-the-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-2048 kckepler Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:16:20 +0000 http://www.bobgriggs.com/?p=163#comment-2048 <a href='#comment-2031' rel="nofollow">@BobG</a> - Went to the SSA office I already new what the issue was. The IRS had investigated this several years ago and FOUND the SSA had RE-ISSUED my SSN to a apparent non-existant person in 1985. I received my SSN in 1960 The SSA attitude has always been [ see court records for this EXACT same issue ] "we NEVER make a mistake" It will cost at least $5000 to hire a attorney to get this fixed. The SSA refused to do anything as it would prove they screwed up.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2048','kckepler'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2048','kckepler','<a href=\'#comment-2031\' rel=\"nofollow\">@BobG<\/a> - Went to the SSA office\r\n\r\nI already new what the issue was. The IRS had investigated this several years ago and FOUND the SSA had RE-ISSUED my SSN to a apparent non-existant person in 1985. I received my SSN in 1960\r\n\r\nThe SSA attitude has always been [ see court records for this EXACT same issue ] \"we NEVER make a mistake\"\r\n\r\nIt will cost at least $5000 to hire a attorney to get this fixed.\r\n\r\nThe SSA refused to do anything as it would prove they screwed up.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> @BobG – Went to the SSA office

I already new what the issue was. The IRS had investigated this several years ago and FOUND the SSA had RE-ISSUED my SSN to a apparent non-existant person in 1985. I received my SSN in 1960

The SSA attitude has always been [ see court records for this EXACT same issue ] “we NEVER make a mistake”

It will cost at least $5000 to hire a attorney to get this fixed.

The SSA refused to do anything as it would prove they screwed up.

Reply – Quote
]]>