alt.lawyers

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:22:38 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:03:34 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >>Larry wrote: >>> According to the bar examiners, Ken admitted that he used discovery to >>> get informat

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:RsSdnQ12QMrYQPrfRVn-vg@ez2.net... > > "Question" <question @ no connection . com> wrote in message > news:e1c8f$4267aeb0$943f6c44$2866@STARBAND.NET... > > <esnesnommoc@urthlynk.c0m> wrot

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Jon Beaver wrote: > dhm wrote: >> Why did the original judge rule in Ken's favor >> against Larson? > > What's your evidence of that fact? I have a lot of reasons why you > should doubt it. Again, again, it doesn't matter.

Seth Breidbart wrote: > In article <4267C81E.1030701@it.com>, > Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > >> My point is that you CAN'T abuse the discovery process, as a matter >>of definition. > > Yes, you can. See, for instance, what kil

his is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040902020606050609040100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:00:18 +0000, dhm@best.com wrote:

stevejduf...@yahoo.com wrote: > Well, yes Bruce. I am concerned about any infringement on freedom of > speech because the same thing might happen to me, as you said. What -you- mean to say is "it has happened to you" or to *moonies* like -you-.

stevejduf...@yahoo.com wrote: > Well, yes Bruce. I am concerned about any infringement on freedom of > speech because the same thing might happen to me, as you said. Susan > on the other hand seems to think that her religion is so socially > respe

Well, yes Bruce. I am concerned about any infringement on freedom of speech because the same thing might happen to me, as you said. Susan on the other hand seems to think that her religion is so socially respectable and/or politically correct that sh

In article <4267C81E.1030701@it.com>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > My point is that you CAN'T abuse the discovery process, as a matter >of definition. Yes, you can. See, for instance, what killed MAPS. (But that wouldn't be

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:52:21 GMT, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> > > How is the fact that two courts have said Ken didn't abuse the >legal system irrelevant? Please cite case law where appropriate. Tell you what. You explain to me what legal iss

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 I wrote: > > I'm bailing out on this one. > Sorry, my parachute got snagged. Now I have some more questions for Ken. As I suggested, I believe the reason Ken was rejected was because admitting him would make Colorado's

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:18:47 +0000, dhm@best.com wrote: > >On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Jon Beaver wrote: > >> dhm wrote: >>> Why did the original judge rule in Ken's favor >>> against Larson? >> >> What's your evidence of that fact? I have a lot of re

stevejduf...@yahoo.com a *moonie* sycophant wrote: > Martin Holterman wrote: > > hobbitfan111@yahoo.com wrote: *moonie* steve is trying to defend *his* ability as a *moonie* to street preach, and panhandle in the streets for Moon. Don't let him f

Larry wrote: > In article <4267C827.90806@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I am frustrated by your unreasonably obstinate behavior, Larry. On >>>>>>that count, I plead guilty. :) >>>>> >>>>>So stop discu

Larry wrote: > In article <4267C8C6.80108@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: [snip] >> I reserve the right to defend my reputation as against your false and >>malicious accusations. If you two don't have a horse in this race, and >

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:29:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>Jon Beaver wrote: >>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:11:00 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >> >>>>If a lawsuit has merit, it's protected by the >>>>First Amendmen

Larry wrote: > In article <4267C81E.1030701@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>Larry wrote: >>>In article <42678B91.6090507@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> When dealing with Jon, the "better" answer is invariably the

"Anonymous" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> escribió en el mensaje news:VJXW21ZM38463.2047685185@anonymous.poster... > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger was born to Joseph & Mary > Ratzinger Saturn's Day 16 Apr

Martin Holterman wrote: > hobbitfan111@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>>Hi Susan. If you were standing on the subway platform in New York > > > > I'm > > > >>>sure you would have the right to talk about your religion to > > > > someone > > > >>>els

In article <VJXW21ZM38463.2047685185@anonymous.poster> Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: > > Daniel Joseph Min > alt.asshole.daniel-joseph-min

In article <5bif61d9aopdjoosfbvac1486818ij9ko0@4ax.com>, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:19:33 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote: > > >In article <pjgf61l1mkohq9p9mkikuatle68bh0v57f@4ax.com>, > > Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.co

In article <4267C8C6.80108@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > Jon Beaver wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:03:16 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >>Larry wrote: > >>>In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wro

In article <4267C827.90806@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > Larry wrote: > > In article <426789C0.5050505@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >>Larry wrote: > >>>In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrot

In article <4267C81E.1030701@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > Larry wrote: > > In article <42678B91.6090507@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > > > >> When dealing with Jon, the "better" answer is invariably the one he > >>so

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:03:16 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>Larry wrote: >>>In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> I am frustrated by your unreasonably obstinate be

Larry wrote: > In article <pjgf61l1mkohq9p9mkikuatle68bh0v57f@4ax.com>, > Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:03:16 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>>Larry wrote: >>>>In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <fo

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:03:34 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>Larry wrote: >> >>>According to the bar examiners, Ken admitted that he used discovery to >>>get information that, as a journalist, he wouldn't be able to get.

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:11:00 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >>If a lawsuit has merit, it's protected by the >>First Amendment. Period. > > You keep using "protected by the First Amendment" in a strange way. > Thi

Jon Beaver wrote: > Ken @$#*ed up. Don't you mean that Ken's attorney of record, civil rights expert David Lane, @$#*ed up? Jon, you are cordially invited to present your findings to the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary

Larry wrote: > In article <426789C0.5050505@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>Larry wrote: >>>In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> I am frustrated by your unreasonably obstinate be

Larry wrote: > In article <42678B91.6090507@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >> When dealing with Jon, the "better" answer is invariably the one he >>somehow needs to find. If a lawsuit has merit, it's protected by the >>First Amendm

In article <pjgf61l1mkohq9p9mkikuatle68bh0v57f@4ax.com>, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:03:16 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > > >Larry wrote: > >> In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com

Can someone tell me what the corresponding charge is for Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2) in CT? The current charge is in PA but I do not see IA listed as a charge in CT so I need to find out what it would correspond to there. Thanks!

On 20 Apr 2005, "Question" <question @ no connection . com> wrote: > When exercising the extended summer visitation, > does the weeks of visitation go from Sunday to > Sunday? Or, can they be any 7 day period? (ex. > Tues. to Tues., Friday to Friday

In article <42678B91.6090507@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > > When dealing with Jon, the "better" answer is invariably the one he > somehow needs to find. If a lawsuit has merit, it's protected by the > First Amendment. Period. I

In article <426789C0.5050505@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > Larry wrote: > > In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >> > >> I am frustrated by your unreasonably obstinate behavior, La

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:00:18 +0000, dhm@best.com wrote: >Why did the original judge rule in Ken's favor >against Larson? What's your evidence of that fact? I have a lot of reasons why you should doubt it. Again, again, it doesn't matter. It's

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:14:27 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >Larry wrote: >> In article <4267C81E.1030701@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>>Larry wrote: >>>>In article <42678B91.6090507@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >>

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:15:00 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > I'm illustrating a simple point: The fact that something is committed >to writing doesn't make it true. Why would you want to make an irrelevant "point?" It's not about whet

solar wrote: > Seth Breidbart wrote > >>"Can you be more specific than "acting crazy"? > > Yet, Ken's still 'mentally fit' to be an accountant and able to > represent clients in front of the IRS...... but somehow not 'mentally > fit' to be a law

> Why do you think that Ben Franklin would be selling books in a place where > he was not allowed to sell them? Since he was one of the most important leaders of the American Revolution I think that sometimes he did things he was not allowed to d

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:32:53 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth > Breidbart) wrote: >>In article <gtsd61911hnfr32dnqfl5gfeck2t24s6c8@4ax.com>, >>Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:47:07 +0000 (UTC), seth

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:25:38 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth > Breidbart) wrote: [snip] > Don't work too hard to avoid the point, Seth. After all, you would be infringing on Jon's turf, and he doesn't like it very

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:27:36 +0000 (UTC), sethb@panix.com (Seth > Breidbart) wrote: >>In article <navd61dj9jddhguefnquvlf3rqij2kaloj@4ax.com>, >>Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:51:36 GMT, Ken Smith <f

"Question" <question @ no connection . com> wrote in message news:e1c8f$4267aeb0$943f6c44$2866@STARBAND.NET... > <esnesnommoc@urthlynk.c0m> wrote in message > news:4267b2df.2008175@news.east.earthlink.net... > > On 20 Apr 2005, "Question" <question @

Larry wrote: > In article <d46vi7$p$1@reader1.panix.com>, > sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote: >>In article <navd61dj9jddhguefnquvlf3rqij2kaloj@4ax.com>, >>Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:51:36 GMT, Ken Smith <forg

Larry wrote: > In article <4266A9BA.8080604@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: [snip] >> >> I am frustrated by your unreasonably obstinate behavior, Larry. On >>that count, I plead guilty. :) > > So stop discussing the case with m

<esnesnommoc@urthlynk.c0m> wrote in message news:4267b2df.2008175@news.east.earthlink.net... > On 20 Apr 2005, "Question" <question @ no connection . com> wrote: > > > When exercising the extended summer visitation, > > does the weeks of visitation g