|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <8g9h22ldvmdfoq70n6dgqpehutenh4jstf@4ax.com>,
> Carlos <brastras@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >Any writing or timely submission of additional evidence by the
> >claimant, his/her representative payee or his/her represen
|
|
|
In article <4n5o22lp8trhu5tgpachp43koqlsf0vf77@4ax.com>,
Oscar <escaperoutes@gmail.com> wrote:
>3 people, A, B and C, agree to set up a business. They each agree to
>provide $55,000 start up capital in return for 550 shares in the
>business - a third
|
|
|
paltema@gmail.com, assuming arguendo the truth of the charge against
him, wrote:
> I was recently caught shoplifting an item valued 30 dollars. I have a
> court date coming up. how worried should i be about punishment? should
> i get a public defender
|
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:56:30 -0400 from ddnoe@bellsouth.net
> <ddnoe@bellsouth.net>:
> > I have a friend who owned and ran a small publishing firm. The film is
> > no longer operating but he still has the right to the use of the ti
|
|
|
In article <q4co02198mgjusso03pifptju3rrf77ts2@4ax.com>,
bat <bat@bats.com> wrote:
> MA> however, many of the spam emails come from overseas where the US has no
> MA> jurisdiction.
>
>But the U.S. has jurisdiction over (1) U.S. company that sold my e
|
|
|
Predictably, Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the side of the Duke lacrosse
players who have been accused of gang-raping a student from a
neighboring college who they had hired as an exotic dancer.
According to David Brock's Media Matters group, he accuse
|
|
|
Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
> John F. Carr <jfc@mit.edu> wrote:
>> Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment saying if a trial
>> goes on more than a month or generates more than twenty pages
>> of jury instructions we stop the proceedi
|
|
|
"Cris" <staunchman@cf.rr.com> wrote in message
news:plg0329670hd8j0dilhnkq3qnj4051lm9o@4ax.com...
>I know they had this stipulation in their contract, but for a
> contract to be legally enforceable, don't the terms have to be at
> least somewhat re
|
|
|
I'd say the chances of me getting fired within the next couple of weeks
is fairly high. However, there's a clause in my contract that says
that if I'm "terminated," then I cannot mention the firm's name in
connection with my name at all. For example,
|
|
|
Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
>> Do divorce proceedings include the question "What gifts have you
>> made recently?"
> That is an issue in California, since gifts of community prop
|
|
|
In article <7go522pfhmek4pe7g8afofugto1if38r5e@4ax.com>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <d4r222pk16dudpbhs6jl7pbtftdccsq60k@4ax.com>,
>Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbar
|
|
|
I would like to know what legal recourse I have if I have discovered my
copyrighted artwork on a clipart disc that has been included on
multiple versions of software sold worldwide over a 3 year period in 7
different languages. The software company was
|
|
|
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:55:30 -0400, "jimjam" <taliman2@lycos.com>
wrote:
>I am buying a house in N. Carolina. BOth seller and buyer have signed
>the contract drawn up by the realtor.
>However, a title search revealed that a now deceased uncle is
|
|
|
I'm sorry if I don't have all the facts, but I'm posting for a friend
and want to find out some answers. My friend has taken legal custody
of two children, 6 and 9 from an acquantience she has known for years.
The natural mother is of "dis-reputable"
|
|
|
Manoj wrote:
>> You had a right to SCOTUS appeal before 1925,
>> but not now.
> I found a more recent case (from 2002) which was an appeal: United
> States vs. American Library Association.
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf
>
|
|
|
Manoj wrote:
> I found a more recent case (from 2002) which was an appeal:
> United States vs. American Library Association.
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf
> This was an appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
> L
|
|
|
"Manoj" <manojb@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> You had a right to SCOTUS appeal before 1925,
>> but not now.
>
> I found a more recent case (from 2002) which was an appeal:
> United States vs. American Library Association.
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov
|
|
|
Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I just checked Michigan's version of UCC section 9-203(1). It
>says, "A security interest attaches to collateral when it becomes
>enforceable against the debtor with respect to the collateral,
>
|
|
|
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> Under section 9-203(2)(c)(i) the debtor must have "authenticated" a
> security agreement.
>
> Under section 9-102(1)(g), "authentication" can be either
>
> "(i) To sign.
>
> "(ii) To execute or otherwise adopt a symb
|
|
|
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>berry@ix.netcom.com (berry) wrote:
>
>> We have a Bypass Trust incorporated in our Will.
>
>If it's incorporated into your Will, it means that your estate will
>have to go to probate. That
|
|
