|
|
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>
>>You would think California would recognize common-law marriage.
>>But they don't.
>
> California recognizes common-law marriages that were created in
> states in whi
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:56:19 -0500, mapais@gmail.com wrote:
>Internet has created a forum for trademark infringement...
Of course it has. In principle, there is no difference between
trademark infringment on the Internet and in any other medium.
P
|
|
|
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
> The SSA *is not* the appropriate organization to determine Constitutional
> law. If you insist on wrapping yourself with *your interpretation of* the
> Constitution instead of following the correct procedure as defined by the
|
|
|
Can somone please explain to me why the EPA refers to the Clean Water
act with numbers such as 303(d); but the US code refers to the same
section with numbers which do not correspond at all, such as TITLE 33 >
CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER III > ยง 1313?
|
|
|
Bob Sweeney <Info@FortLauderdaleFriendMaker.Com> wrote:
[OP is becoming a 1099 contractor. The contract calls for billing
at the end of each month, with payment to be made up to 30 days
later.]
>The contract says any dispute will be handl
|
|
|
Bob Sweeney wrote:
[working for Indians in AZ while he is in FL. He thinks the whole world
is made up of crooks out to get him]
>
> The contract says any dispute will be handled under the laws of AZ.....
>
> How can I protect myself if this com
|
|
|
In article <j9ee22ta6p277nguf5ul61eq1tammsdk1p@4ax.com>,
"Bob Sweeney" <Info@FortLauderdaleFriendMaker.Com> wrote:
> I'm signing an agreement to provide programming services on a "1099" basis.
>
> I have to keep my hours worked until the end of th
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:40:15 -0500, Suzie-Q <sme617x@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>My question is, does that personal property become fair game for
>scavengers like me? Or would it be more like stealing?
>
>I'm really just sort of curious since this sor
|
|
|
Jimbo <Jimbo@verizon.net> wrote:
> I've had so many colleagues tell me if a New Jersey resident
> travels to your office in Manhattan to have his will signed,
> you're not practising in NJ without a license; that this is
> permissible practice.
>
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:43 -0500 from jaynews <jaynews@verizon.net>:
> My girlfriend is already living with me in my house, ...
>
> 1) Would my girlfriend ever have the right to have her son move in here for
> an indefinite time period without my perm
|
|
|
gene@alliancetax.com wrote:
> But only to the extent of gross negligence or a personal wrong.
> The LLC or S Corporation will still afford liability protection
> against personal assets from a business suit. For example, if a
> single member LLC
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:30 -0500 from maxborn555 <maxborn555
@yahoo.com>:
> prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
> > Would a five-line sentence qualify as an "overly long [sentence]"? <innocent
> > look>
>
> How about five *words*? "This contract is for
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:27 -0500 from Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>:
> The right of the jury to acquit regardless of the written law is one
> of the foundations of the rights of the people. If the law itself is
> a bad law -- most obviousl
|
|
|
Earthlink wrote:
> my son receivd a notification for jury duty in my name. Howeer, i've been
> living out of the country for more than a year now.
>
> Am i excluded? How do i respond to the jury duty letter?
WHO received the call to jury duty? I
|
|
|
Earthlink wrote:
> my son receivd a notification for jury duty in my name. Howeer, i've been
> living out of the country for more than a year now.
>
> Am i excluded? How do i respond to the jury duty letter?
>
Depends on the rules of the jurisdic
|
|
|
> my son receivd a notification for jury duty in my name. Howeer, i've been
> living out of the country for more than a year now.
>
> Am i excluded? How do i respond to the jury duty letter?
You should call the number on the form or ask the c
|
|
|
"Earthlink" wrote:
> My son received a notification for jury duty in my
> name. However, I've been living out of the country
> for more than a year now. Am I excluded? How do I
> respond to the jury duty letter?
This happened t
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:23 -0500 from Earthlink <none@none.com>:
> my son receivd a notification for jury duty in my name. Howeer, i've been
> living out of the country for more than a year now.
>
> Am i excluded? How do i respond to the jury duty le
|
|
|
In article <09ee2293a30k6k1sokuc464di19lne03h9@4ax.com>,
"Earthlink" <none@none.com> wrote:
> my son receivd a notification for jury duty in my name. Howeer, i've been
> living out of the country for more than a year now.
>
> Am i excluded? How
|
|
|
In article <o8ee229509t71p2r0labishj8pi648kj48@4ax.com>,
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>
> > "Your honor, I am an atheist, and I consider any oath made to or
> > before a g
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:20 -0500 from <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>:
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Before you go around insulting people, check your facts. This is
> > particularly important where you fasten on a side point as a
|
|
|
[OP was twice banned from an AOL message board for posting messages
allegedly "disruptive", and later, allegedly "off topic". He could not
find a violation of the TOS. He wants to know if he has any legal
recourse.]
The short answer is "probably n
|
|
|
mrmunyan@aol.com <mrmunyan@aol.com> wrote:
>I have a question pertaining to a person's rights to free expression
>when it comes to posting on message boards. My internet service
>provider is AOL.
[OP has been running a "stock picking contest" on
|
|
|
>Then they tell me that my ONE post was "off topic" and "disruptive."
>In addition, they wrote that they changed their mind once again and
>decided that the stock picking contests may NOT continue.
>
>In essense, they told me what I COULD do. Then I
|
|
|
mrmunyan@aol.com wrote:
> Greetings To All:
>
> I have a question pertaining to a person's rights to free expression
> when it comes to posting on message boards. My internet service
> provider is AOL.
Even if what they did was a violation of t
|
|
|
mrmunyan@aol.com wrote:
[claims AOL is arbitrary in its banning him from chat type postings]
>
> I have read of arguments in the past that AOL and other internet
> message boards are "private property" and they have the right to censor
> anybody for
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:02 -0500 from mrmunyan@aol.com
<mrmunyan@aol.com>:
> Greetings To All:
>
> I have a question pertaining to a person's rights to free expression
> when it comes to posting on message boards.
As long as we're going to discus
|
|
|
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
> Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>> First, the limit is $12,000, doubled if the giver or recipient
>> (and quadrupled if both) is married.
>
> The limit isn't doubled or quadrupled. What DOES change is that
|
|
|
Jonathan Sachs wrote:
> One final observation: you may have lost sight of the fact that the
> basic elements of defamation are a *false statement* which causes
> *harm to reputation*. This incident has undoubtedly cost you some
> money and a grea
|
|
|
flamethrowingtroll@yahoo.com wrote:
> G Wheelock wrote:
>
>>believe that I will be able to prove "malice" in both
>>the defamation sense.
>
> How do you know it's not just a case of mistaken indentity?
>
> Defamation law is not very plaintiff f
|
|
|
"Scott Hedrick" <diespammers-dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q7ee22hdl6182eul8bbeqbflencuuau5dr@4ax.com...
> The point is, it's fraud. Moreover, it may also cause a great deal of tax
> problems. After all, if you treat the winnings as her m
|
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:07:38 -0500 from Tony <tony23
> @dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com>:
> [free annual credit report]
>
>>What law is that? The last I knew, you could get a credit report, but
>>for a "reasonable fee"
>
> http://www
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:07:38 -0500, Tony
<tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:49:35 -0500 from rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>>Every year I get a letter from Experian saying I am entitled to free
|
|
|
Vendor A is selling to Vendor B. Vendor A has an invoice with specific
terms and conditions of sale. Vendor B has a purchase order to Vendor B
for the items in Vendor A's invoice, but Vendor B's purchase order has NO
specific terms or conditions s
|
|
|
bat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois sent me a letter informing that they are
> investigating my medical claim, suspecting it was preexisting condition.
> Fine, it's their right. But one sentence in the letter attracted my at
|
|
|
>bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:
>
>>The one good thing is that this is clearly an "intentional" tort.
>>That means it can't be wiped out if the perp goes through bankruptcy. . . .
Daniel R. Reitman <dreitman@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Under the old
|
|
|
=============================================================
Oral argument previews: Prepared by the liibulletin editorial board:
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/bulletin/05board.htm >
=============================================================
S
|
|
