alt.lawyers

http://www.alexconstantine.50megs.com/the_cia_and.html It all sounds legit. I checked some of it out and it was verifiable. ---------------------------------------- In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan - a screen idol recruited by

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:31:44 -0000, "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote: >Jeff Strickland wrote: >> >> Even in the current system, a corporation can't simply bring charges >> of libel without some kind of proof. >> >You are so

Jeff Strickland wrote: > > Even in the current system, a corporation can't simply bring charges > of libel without some kind of proof. > You are so wrong, it's almost funny.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:21:17 +0000, Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: >So yes, it does unequivocally fatally undermine the judgement. So what happens with that judgement now Richard? Is it automatically quashed? smicker

In article <dq57115a1n0batng7v50sq33cbdgvt1uc3@4ax.com>, peterturtill@hotmail.com says... > A similar thing happened > with his supporter Pat Jacobs AKA Pat Winstanley. As she was due to go > to court she claimed a mental breakdown > You are lyi

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:he2dnYUlvY6WWo7fRVn-2w@ez2.net... > > "Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:IDH6$rZmq7ECFwjb@seasalter0.demon.co.uk... >> In message <s7GdnUBHLNKRG

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:2eSdnb1PROd4PI7fRVn-vw@ez2.net... > > The problem in the McD case is that McD did nothing wrong. It pays low > wages, so what? It kills cows, so what? It sells its product to chioldren

In message <tuGdnZ2ZMP0eIY7fRVn-qg@ez2.net>, Jeff Strickland <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes > >"jrsdctr" <jrsdctr@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1108585834.816167.47670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> Much of what they said was found to be tru

In message <LtednZdUZ85wKI7fRVn-uw@ez2.net>, Jeff Strickland <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes > >"Steve Walker" <spam-trap@beeb.net> wrote in message >news:37ho8aF5dgub3U1@individual.net... >> Jeff Strickland wrote: >> >> > Libel laws SHOULD favor p

In message <2_qdnaTii5fEMY7fRVn-oA@ez2.net>, Jeff Strickland <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes > >"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote in message >news:4213a0ea$0$38840$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com... >> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net

In message <sva7119a4lhd24u3fsuqalp436comcahd0@4ax.com>, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> writes >On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:18:43 -0000, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> >wrote: > >>A good point but it isn't quite as simple as that. There are freedom o

On 16/2/05 9:28 pm, in article 4213bb12$0$32618$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk, "Fred" <Fred@n0spam.c0m> wrote: > > I was told some time ago it also depended on the life expectancy of the > parent, particularly if death was imminent. That is "forced he

On 16/2/05 9:30 pm, in article BE396C04.54466%biwah@hotmail.com, "Biwah" <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote: > The Telegraph agrees with you (but I don't). McDo wasn't, in fact harmed. > Supersize Me has shown that much of what they said was true; the rest wa

n 16/2/05 7:37 pm, in article 2eSdnb1PROd4PI7fRVn-vw@ez2.net, "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote: > In the Lloyds case that you bring to the table, the charge is that Lloyd > engaged in illegal practice. If true, then the poorest of defe

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:Ku6dnTT7Z9o4MI7fRVn-pQ@ez2.net... > > All of this is beyond the pale. The spouse should not be able to go after > the assets of the parents, even if those assets might one day flow to t

In message <s7GdnUBHLNKRGo7fRVn-hg@ez2.net>, Jeff Strickland <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes >As much as there might be free speech issues, if one tells a lie then >free speech can not be invoked. > >McD didn't sue because it was criticized, it sued

In message <Id6dnWiNWJXx5o7fRVn-qw@ez2.net>, Jeff Strickland <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes > > >This paragraph is the crux of the case, and is a huge problem. It says that >anybody can now make baseless assertions AND demand government to support

"John" <john_tilly@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.02.16.16.36.45.172306@hotmail.com... > <snip> > > > Even if they didn't give you the 30 days, if you attempt to opt out > > within this time because they do not serve your area, you can

"Bike Nut" <bikenut1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wGOQd.2658$9J5.209@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "me qsbasher, owner of "me qsuser"" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message > news:37hjt9F5ag71rU1@individual.net... > > > > "Bik

"me qsbasher, owner of "me qsuser"" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message news:37hjt9F5ag71rU1@individual.net... > > "Bike Nut" <bikenut1@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:oyKQd.4316$VI5.11@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > If a husban

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:03:22 +0000, Biwah <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote: >> You have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by >> "freedom of speech". It only protects a person from being prevented >> *by the state* from saying what they

On 16/2/05 8:31 pm, in article sva7119a4lhd24u3fsuqalp436comcahd0@4ax.com, "Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > You have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by > "freedom of speech". It only protects a person from being prevent

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:21:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote: >>> Libel laws SHOULD favor plaintiffs >>> because the plaintiff has been wronged. >> No, all the plaintiff has done is *claim* that he has been >> wronged

On 16 Feb 2005 12:30:34 -0800, "jrsdctr" <jrsdctr@yahoo.com> wrote: >Much of what they said was found to be true. If you make a series of defamatory statements, ISTM that you need to be prepared to prove that *all* of them are true, not just "much"

Posters note: Also posted separately in alt.california, ca.politics, talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.misc US CA: Editorial: No Viable Defense URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n264/a04.html Newshawk: Kirk Votes: 0 Pubdate: Sun, 13 Feb

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:18:43 -0000, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote: >A good point but it isn't quite as simple as that. There are freedom of >speech issues - I doubt if MacDonalds would have been able to sue in the USA >if someone had pub

Jeff Strickland wrote: > Libel laws SHOULD favor plaintiffs because the plaintiff has been > wronged. Erm.... I think you mean *claims to have been* wronged? Have you forgotten how Robert Maxwell used harrassment writs to deter anyone from see

Of course, laws can vary from state to state, but it seems to me that you have two separate situations that only tangentially relate. If you are the lessee (i.e., if your boyfriend is not on the lease), then he has no right to remain if you don't w

The lease would govern, in the absence of other information, it seems. "Jim" <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:37ej38F5ar7toU1@individual.net... > I dont know where you are, but here in Arizona, if he is not in the lease > you could throw h

"Jorda" <g673nw@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:372ea85db62b40ba375dc523d239321d@localhost.talkaboutprofessions.com... > I've had bad feelings about this easement deal all along! The original > plan > was for six houses but now I'm being told t

"pete" <peterturtill@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gi08119852qngs5rp7kc3r96dvpgh28q11@4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:28:42 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" > <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>"pete" <peterturtill@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>

In message <fYecnftmeb-ygo7fSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>, Alex <akiralx@blueyonder.co.uk> writes >Am I the only one who think this pair are a couple of twerps? They did >libel McDonalds by and large, so they could have avoided all this, and >not wasted var

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:25:54 -0000, "Mike Manning" <me9@privacy.net> wrote: >Another post in this thread, if correct, would seem to give some relevance >to your wife's condition at the time you discontinued your claim. >Also, if correct, please acce

In article <tp371154oqrcallhqocv67sonkm2mgds95@4ax.com>, pete <peterturtill@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:46:41 +0000, Peter Pratt > <peter_pratt@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > >In article <frSdnXdYU_Idwo7fRVnyiA@pipex.net>, Mike Manning

"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1108596704.18563.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > Jeff Strickland wrote: >> >> Even in the current system, a corporation can't simply bring charges >> of libel without some kind of

"pete" <peterturtill@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bl7119j23a7bfrec94v5og642ldb350d7@4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:21:17 +0000, Richard Miller > <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>So yes, it does unequivocally fatally undermin

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:U7J9REndd8ECFwz6@seasalter0.demon.co.uk... > In message <LtednZdUZ85wKI7fRVn-uw@ez2.net>, Jeff Strickland > <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> writes >> >>"Steve Walker" <spam-trap@beeb

"Biwah" <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BE37A1FE.538D3%biwah@hotmail.com... > Daily Mail (London) > February 15, 2005 > > Divorcee Targets Her Father-in-law's Fortune > > By Beth Hale > <snip> I had this trouble. Just got my par

"pete" <peterturtill@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8c1711ltotd7beqsd27o8j9ugq8oqqqfje@4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:59:03 -0000, "Mike Manning" <me9@privacy.net> > wrote: > > >I cant pretend to know you at all, so not in the best positio

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:46:41 +0000, Peter Pratt <peter_pratt@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >In article <frSdnXdYU_Idwo7fRVnyiA@pipex.net>, Mike Manning ><me9@privacy.net> wrote: > >> >> I cant pretend to know you at all, so not in the best position to ju

"The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message news:37i10dF52l9f6U1@individual.net... > > "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message > news:he2dnYUlvY6WWo7fRVn-2w@ez2.net... >> >> "Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.c

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:s7GdnUBHLNKRGo7fRVn-hg@ez2.net... > As much as there might be free speech issues, if one tells a lie then free > speech can not be invoked. > > McD didn't sue because it was criticiz

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:59:03 -0000, "Mike Manning" <me9@privacy.net> wrote: >I cant pretend to know you at all, so not in the best position to judge. >However, I can state without fear or favour that your original post did not >mention your wife at

In article <frSdnXdYU_Idwo7fRVnyiA@pipex.net>, Mike Manning <me9@privacy.net> wrote: > > I cant pretend to know you at all, so not in the best position to judge. > However, I can state without fear or favour that your original post did not > menti

Greedy Cow

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:22:28 +0000, Marshall Rice <Marshall@marshallricebin.co.uk> wrote: >In article <20l611llviluhd551ip2d3s48shkar0tq8@4ax.com>, pete ><peterturtill@hotmail.com> writes > >>Don't be mislead by this anon post folks. It is totally

Greetings! As a victim of a SLAPP suit that has been in litigation for more than three years, I found that while many excellent informational resources about SLAPPs exist on the Internet, I could not find a venue for victims to share their experienc

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:Id6dnWiNWJXx5o7fRVn-qw@ez2.net... > > > > On Tuesday, the rest of it went down the drain. A seven-judge panel in > > Strasbourg, France, threw out the original judgment, ruling unanimou

In article <6tg611p3i1b40tj0mvmqbrb4aq98offk5m@4ax.com>, peterturtill@hotmail.com says... > I have been > libeled persistently by a deaf and blind man > So you claim... but you have never proved it.

<snip> > Even if they didn't give you the 30 days, if you attempt to opt out > within this time because they do not serve your area, you can usually > avoid the Early Termination Fee. >> As I mentioned, the renewed contract was under the promise