<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: California Affiliates Get Ready</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/2009/02/california-affiliates-get-ready/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/2009/02/california-affiliates-get-ready/</link>
	<description>My Life as an Affiliate from New York</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:14:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leo Ramos</title>
		<link>http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/2009/02/california-affiliates-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-3650</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo Ramos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/?p=614#comment-3650</guid>
		<description>Melanie, It&#039;s been a while since I posted my comment and didn&#039;t realize anyone had answered it (until today).  So first of all, thank you!  

Second, if I enter into an affiliate agreement, can they hide this type of agreement in their TOS?  What do I look for to see if I&#039;ve unknowingly entered into such an agreement?  And if so, what would be my recourse?

Thanks,
Leo</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Melanie, It&#8217;s been a while since I posted my comment and didn&#8217;t realize anyone had answered it (until today).  So first of all, thank you!  </p>
<p>Second, if I enter into an affiliate agreement, can they hide this type of agreement in their TOS?  What do I look for to see if I&#8217;ve unknowingly entered into such an agreement?  And if so, what would be my recourse?</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Leo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur Stopes, III.</title>
		<link>http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/2009/02/california-affiliates-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-1690</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur Stopes, III.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/?p=614#comment-1690</guid>
		<description>Dear Melanie Seery:

   Cheer up!

   With all respect - and much concern about the
so-called &quot;Sales Tax&quot; on Internet sales - you are
all being taken in...

   I am a Legislative Analyst and Writer (L.A.W.),
and can thus READ the statutory language of the
amendment to Revenue and Taxation Code,
Section 6203, which is &quot;AB 178&quot;. None of this is
what you think. But (as you should know),
&quot;Don&#039;t believe what you think!&quot;

   Have You read the Amendment? The legal
phrase &quot;in this state&quot;* appears eleven (11) times
in the amendment. WHY?

   If the California Legislature can only legislate
for California state (where I live), it is hardly
necessary to mention that phrase &quot;in this state&quot;*
even one time. But, 11 times? Think about it...

   The phrase does NOT mean California state;
it means a &quot;Federal Area&quot; within California,
which is the title of the implementing regulation
(18:1616) to the &quot;State of&quot; CaliforniaRevenue
and Taxation Code, Section 6017, which legally
defines the phrases &quot;in the state&quot; and &quot;in this
state&quot;. Do look them up. Especially, Sec. 6017.

   This is enough, for now.
IF you want to know more, send me an e-mail at
, or call Me at
(510) 548-5238.

   You/the &quot;businesses&quot; CANNOT be required to
sign (enter into contract), with the de facto
&quot;State of&quot; California &quot;Board of Equalization&quot; - or
any other entity. Only IF you/the &quot;businesses&quot;
SIGN their &quot;Forms&quot;, will you be jeopardized and
obliged to collect &quot;Sales Taxes&quot;. It&#039;s Contractual.

   By the way, certain enterprises at Berkeley DO
NOT attempt to collect &quot;Sales Taxes&quot;, from Me.

Sincerely, Arthur Stopes, III.
Director, Center for Unalienable Rights
Education.

N.B.:
1.) Pursuant to the Rev. &amp; Tax Code and the
Civil Code, the Purchaser must &quot;agree&quot; to pay
the &quot;Sales Tax&quot;. I do NOT agree!
2.) Further, if the Retailer/Seller is NOT &quot;in this
state&quot; (i.e., located on a Federal Area), the &quot;Sales
Tax&quot; cannot be imposed upon them, either.

   Please write or call. Thank you.

Note:
Congress RE-defined the word &quot;State&quot; on July
20, 1868. Most &quot;attorneys&quot; don&#039;t know this...
And the people still think it means &quot;California&quot;?
BEWARE.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Melanie Seery:</p>
<p>   Cheer up!</p>
<p>   With all respect &#8211; and much concern about the<br />
so-called &#8220;Sales Tax&#8221; on Internet sales &#8211; you are<br />
all being taken in&#8230;</p>
<p>   I am a Legislative Analyst and Writer (L.A.W.),<br />
and can thus READ the statutory language of the<br />
amendment to Revenue and Taxation Code,<br />
Section 6203, which is &#8220;AB 178&#8243;. None of this is<br />
what you think. But (as you should know),<br />
&#8220;Don&#8217;t believe what you think!&#8221;</p>
<p>   Have You read the Amendment? The legal<br />
phrase &#8220;in this state&#8221;* appears eleven (11) times<br />
in the amendment. WHY?</p>
<p>   If the California Legislature can only legislate<br />
for California state (where I live), it is hardly<br />
necessary to mention that phrase &#8220;in this state&#8221;*<br />
even one time. But, 11 times? Think about it&#8230;</p>
<p>   The phrase does NOT mean California state;<br />
it means a &#8220;Federal Area&#8221; within California,<br />
which is the title of the implementing regulation<br />
(18:1616) to the &#8220;State of&#8221; CaliforniaRevenue<br />
and Taxation Code, Section 6017, which legally<br />
defines the phrases &#8220;in the state&#8221; and &#8220;in this<br />
state&#8221;. Do look them up. Especially, Sec. 6017.</p>
<p>   This is enough, for now.<br />
IF you want to know more, send me an e-mail at<br />
, or call Me at<br />
(510) 548-5238.</p>
<p>   You/the &#8220;businesses&#8221; CANNOT be required to<br />
sign (enter into contract), with the de facto<br />
&#8220;State of&#8221; California &#8220;Board of Equalization&#8221; &#8211; or<br />
any other entity. Only IF you/the &#8220;businesses&#8221;<br />
SIGN their &#8220;Forms&#8221;, will you be jeopardized and<br />
obliged to collect &#8220;Sales Taxes&#8221;. It&#8217;s Contractual.</p>
<p>   By the way, certain enterprises at Berkeley DO<br />
NOT attempt to collect &#8220;Sales Taxes&#8221;, from Me.</p>
<p>Sincerely, Arthur Stopes, III.<br />
Director, Center for Unalienable Rights<br />
Education.</p>
<p>N.B.:<br />
1.) Pursuant to the Rev. &amp; Tax Code and the<br />
Civil Code, the Purchaser must &#8220;agree&#8221; to pay<br />
the &#8220;Sales Tax&#8221;. I do NOT agree!<br />
2.) Further, if the Retailer/Seller is NOT &#8220;in this<br />
state&#8221; (i.e., located on a Federal Area), the &#8220;Sales<br />
Tax&#8221; cannot be imposed upon them, either.</p>
<p>   Please write or call. Thank you.</p>
<p>Note:<br />
Congress RE-defined the word &#8220;State&#8221; on July<br />
20, 1868. Most &#8220;attorneys&#8221; don&#8217;t know this&#8230;<br />
And the people still think it means &#8220;California&#8221;?<br />
BEWARE.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; California Law Would Emulate New York Affiliate Tax - The Domain Industry's News Source</title>
		<link>http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/2009/02/california-affiliates-get-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-679</link>
		<dc:creator>Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; California Law Would Emulate New York Affiliate Tax - The Domain Industry's News Source</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nyaffiliatevoice.com/?p=614#comment-679</guid>
		<description>[...] reports about a new proposed law in California that is similar to a New York tax law. New York&#8217;s law [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] reports about a new proposed law in California that is similar to a New York tax law. New York&#8217;s law [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
