Re: Response to Conanylizer

More | Report Post

You would think that after going to law school, you lawyers would have a
good undestanding of property rights and what is meant when a law states
that every gratuity is hereby declared to be the "sole property" of the
employee or employees to whom it is paid, given or left for.

Here is what I found on the subject of "sole property" ownership.

Ways to Own Property

Sole ownership is when a person completely owns property by himself. Such
property is bought with a person's own money and is not shared with anyone
else. Property owned as a sole possession can be given away as the owner
wishes.

The concept of a "sole property right" occupies the extreme end of the
spectrum of ownership rights and encompasses all the core rights: to
exclude others from one's property, (trespassory rights), to have exclusive
use and control over one's property and a right to freely dispose of one's
property.

Property ownership refers to a set of legal rights, held by a person (or
persons), relating to a particular thing, which together are recognized as
possession of that thing. Ownership consists of possession and control over
the item. Although the exact scope of that set of rights can vary depending
upon the nature of the thing owned, and from legal system to legal system,
certain of those rights represent the core of what is generally understood
as “ownership.” Chief amongst these is the right to exclude others from the
use or enjoyment of the thing owned.

Why can't an employee who is given a tip exclude his employer from
benfitting himself to the employee's sole property. When employers are
allowed to require that tips be collected and shared among a group of
workers, the employee or employees to whom such tips have been paid, given
or left for are stripped of their right to exclude others from the use or
enjoyment of that defined as the sole property of such employee or
employees. Clearly the judges who have ruled that employers may mandate
that all tips will be disposed as the employer chooses are disregarding
state laws and are fruadulently making up their own laws.

While it is clearly understood by legal proffessionals that property
ownership refers to a set of legal rights, held by a person or persons, it
should also be understood that when a statute states that every gatuity is
hereby declared to be the sole propery of the employee or employees to whom
it is paid, given or left for by a patron, such does not suggest a judge,
rather than the patron giving such gratuity, should determine who the
patron is giving his gratuity to. Clearly patrons have every right and
ability to make their intentions clear through their actions, whether it be
paying a tip to an individual, paying several tips to several individuals,
giving a tip to an individual, giving several tips to several individuals,
leaving a tip for an individual or leaving several tips for several
individuals.

The point I am making is, since the statute in question clearly instructs
that "every gratuity" is hereby declared to be the sole property of the
employee or employees to whom "it" was paid given or left for by a patron,
the question of who gratuities are intended for is idiotic, illogical,
imbecilic, inane, incongruous, inconsistent, insignificant, irrational,
ludicrous, mad, mindless, moronic, nonsensical, nutty, pointless,
purportless, purposeless, ridiculous, simple, stupid, trivial, unimportant,
unintelligent, unmeaning, unreasonable, unsound, unwise, wacky*, without
rhyme or reason.

A gratuity is clearly defined as that which is not the property of the
courts. The courts should not be controlling who the customer's tip can or
can't be shared with. Every gratuity is clearly defined as the sole
property of whom ever "the patron" chooses to pay, give or leave a tip for.
The law does not state that every gratuity is hereby declared to be the
community property of whom ever the courts want to pay, give or leave tips
for. Therefore, the fact that the courts are currently deciding who the
customer's tip is intended for is proof that the courts are violating
California labor code by fraudulently suggesting that the courts are
authorized to determine who is entitled to every gratuity.

Clearly section 356 of California labor code contradicts the idea that the
courts are authorized to fraudulently claim that it is the court's right to
deterimine who every gratuity is paid, given or left for.

Now would you lawyers please do something to correct this injustice. All we
want is for you lawyers to challenge the judges who proclaim they they,
rather than customer's, are authorized to determine who every gratuity is
paid, given or left for. All we tipped employees want is for our property
rights to be protected the same way you would expect your property rights
to be respected. Is that too much to ask?

Why are our employers being allowed to take our tips away from us without
proving that the customer's who gave us such tips intended that others
share in our tip? Where is the due process of law you would certainly
expect if you were in the same position?

How can judges assume that state laws are authorizing them to appropriate
the customer's private property, when the very law they are interpreting
makes it clear that it has no intention to infringe on the liberties of the
customer in such a manner. The law clearly instructs that customers are to
be afforded their liberty to pay, give or leave a tip for either an
employee or employees. The fact that the statute is so ambigous as to
whether tips are to be regarded as the sole property of the employee or
employees to whom it was either paid, given or left for is evidence that
the statute recognized the rights of the customer to determine such matters
for themselves.

Why are are judges not recognizing such rights?

Why are employment lawyers not challenging the courts refusal to recognize
such rights?

As a consumer and an American citizen, I have the right to tip whom-ever I
like as long as tipping is not prohibited. This is not an opinion, this is
a fact. The judges who are ruling that my tip may be shared among all those
who work in the chain of service are doing so without my consent. The
judges who have ruled that my private property, my tip, may be appropriated
by an employer are doing so fraudulently and in violation of the laws of
this nation.

On 4/27/09, sharwinsotn wrote:
> no, man.... only Y-O-U care.
> nobody else cares, man -- NOBODY!
>
> On 4/27/09, George wrote:
>> Why do we have labor laws passed for public reason if as you say, no
>> one cares? It doesn't make sense to me sharwinston. Apparently the
>> public does care.
>>
>> California labor code clearly intructs that gratuities are hereby
>> declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom
>> they are paid, given or left for.
>>
>> What I would like to know is how a judge can rule that gratuities are
>> the the property of all workers in the chain of service when Califoria
>> labor code specifically instructs that gratuities may be paid, given
> or
>> left for an employee, singular? Because the labor code was passed for
>> public reason, it is my contention that judges should not be defining
>> who the customer's tip is paid, given or left for. It is my belief
> that
>> California labor code 351, specifically instructs that the right to
>> determine who gratuities are paid, given or left for is a matter
> solely
>> to be determed by the public and that the public's reasons for
> tipping,
>> which would include determining who they tip, should not be
> interpreted
>> or assumed by the courts.
>>
>> Wouldn't the fact that such code is passed for public reason suggest
>> that judges should not be imposing their own personal views on the
>> interpretation of such a law? Wouldn't the fact that such code is
>> passed for public reason suggest that the public, rather than the
>> courts, should be deciding who their tip is paid, given or left for?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/09, sharwinston wrote:
>>> nobody cares, man.... nobody!
>>>
>>> On 4/23/09, George wrote:
>>>> Well no wonder why I become rude and agressive.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone seems to want to dik with me instead of discussing the
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> It's like you are all afraid to actually discuss the issue for
>>> fear
>>>> you'll look like the terd.
>>>>
>>>> What an honor to meet such a mind screwwer. You must have a really
>>>> high IQ. I am glad to see you are putting your godlike mental
>>>> prowess to such a good use.
>>>>