When Paper Manufacturers Were Kings They Forgot To Write The Terms Of Service About Owning Your Things

The loss value claim to be duly claimed in how a paper manufacturer has a derivative formation to reclaim and then in the communication of all of that how their own corporate rights to even own photograph images when transferred to paper is content you created using their content contents if only they had written those terms of services then their attorney would be feeding upon the personal wealth of Facebook and Yahoo and Google instead to remind these companies how technology derived and how anything that enables anyone to capture written words is just paper too or how that might be a derivative of how paper works to boot now one would presume invalidating any type of inventive rights to anything that says content storage if writing can be stored or is that just the images of writing stored would be how Google attorneys will probably argue while Facebook will note all images belong to them since their large customer base must have purposely caused them to have the largest reference case of stored images to own just as soon as they were uploaded and then seized and owned so how it is Yahoo will then wonder Xerox or The Mead Corporation could ever believe their terms of service as written in the air for their paper products could actually supersede Yahoo or even Google and maybe Facebook’s rights to claim ownership of all writing instead since their markets overseas are hungary for the great American treat which is how all writers have to beg for money and work for treats because what they write belongs to the world of Yahoo to boot and Yahoo knows that business or doing business is really king not Xerox or The Mead Corporation or any paper manufacturering thing creating a backing and then a facade and then in theory a way to frame one’s writing to suit with the backing and facade enabling the writing to be stored too.

Americans own the right to use the Internet in reasonableness as part of their per capita equity in the country preserve which is collected together under a mandate of federal laws for the people of the United States of America born with those entitlements.  Corporations are subentities of formations of states which owe their allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and which conformingly model their entity formations in specific regard to “in faith do we trust” that the subpart formed recognized how Americans are entitled to their trusts.  The conservation of the preserve led to weighs and means to measure and conserve and then to trusts and then to how in trust to unbundle subentities of their trusts and then to sharing in those ways that each subentity imparts how to resolve how their formations rely on how effective conservation of the preserve preserves and then conserves the preserve of the subentity too providing in that conservation of the subentity as a corporation preserve preserved a reserve of resolve which translates into a obligation of sharing of the equity whenever any service the subentity provides extends to the divide. In the divide the country’s people are then share holders of record and also entitlees of how benefits are provided in any manner it can be seen that value is being returned profitably. Once a subentity provides a service for free it is clearly a divide profitably and as long as the subentity is in formation and can provide the service for free it can not be altered to remove the trust or impose a fee or take away any individual’s own rights and as it pertains to how sharing is resolved or retracted not without due process of statehood honor or the imposing of the judicial arm in the restoration of the record in how the unbundling of the corporation requires a retracting of the equity sharing formation and not dishonor because profits are gone and not because profits in dishonor are stolen.

© 2014 Shaw Conkling Nunn, Michael Lee Nunn, Michael Lee Urquhart. All rights reserved.