|
|
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> Of late I've been noticing ads from private mints selling coins which
> I'd consider souvenirs, and not "real money".
>
Well, as the thread showed, I was wrong in suspecting that wasn't "real
money".
But this article I read
|
|
|
In article <tf3lg2hjmrn9qtonha5lbe7hu5fcun2s2n@4ax.com>,
Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>Despite the characterization of it as a "shoot the Avon Lady law", no
>Avon Ladies have been shot. Neither have any encyclopedia salesmen or
>religious
|
|
|
>>Florida passed a new law which allows citizens to not attempt to avoid
>>confrontation, but allows them to shoot -- or otherwise dispose -- of
>>another party should they "feel threatened" (not otherwise defined).
>>This, along with a concealed weapo
|
|
|
Note corssposting.
Steve Linford wrote:
> In article <Xns983F630E3B1D5etaoinshrdlu@64.192.187.7>,
> Etaoin Shrdlu <etaoin.shrdlu.nospam+NST@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Le 14 Sep 2006, "e360Insight" <e360insight@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > - Spamh
|
|
|
My wife was involved in auto accident. The other car's driver admitted
guilt, and his insurance company paid for my wife's medical. However,
the offer for settlement of the claim for pain & suffering, etc. was
lower that we will willingly accept( we co
|
|
|
In article <bndig2d06g8egpur68p5u8qfcn51nlgpht@4ax.com>,
Mike Anderson <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>I meant "unless they would have found [the evidence] anyways" and not
>that they would have found the confession (i.e. if the evidence was in
|
|
|
NOSPAM@joinme.com wrote:
> I own a judgment lien. The debtors own some non-exempt real
> property in a small Texas county in which the judgment is
> abstracted. I could get an execution and the sheriff will sell
> the property, but the problem is
|
|
|
decemberelement@gmail.com wrote:
> Luckily, I do have the copy of the June 30, 2006 lease which has our
> signatures.
And for how long, now, have you been paying the rent shown on this
(renewed) lease after your old one expired? If you do get sued
|
|
|
<decemberelement@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sj3lg290bdej1mbgtfoiq6gslfsigoicvm@4ax.com...
> Luckily, I do have the copy of the June 30, 2006 lease which has our
> signatures. The manager neglected to sign it and give us copies. Then
> when I go
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:30:16 -0400 from RB <rbig@bellsouth.nospam.net>:
> The question I have is what potential problems might I be setting myself up
> for down the pike by having my son-in-law name on the deed? I really don't
> see it ever being a pr
|
|
|
In article <lf3lg25s155gv185ne4o288a805a08bkhm@4ax.com>,
RB <rbig@bellsouth.nospam.net> wrote:
>A way to work around the tax bite would be to put my son-in-law's name on
>the deed, and then he would be eligible to claim a homeowner exemption.
Th
|
|
|
"RB" <rbig@bellsouth.nospam.net> wrote:
> Fixing to buy a house for my son-in-law and grandson to live in.
> They'll be paying the amount of loan principal, taxes, and
> insurance as rent.
>
> An issue has come up that I need some thoughts conce
|
|
|
Paraphasing jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr):
>> [New British statute suspends double jeopardy in the face
>> of new evidence. "I did it!" on the courthouse steps after
>> an acquittal would be new evidence.]
JMW wrote:
> In the UK, they can easily chang
|
|
|
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:04:08 -0400 from Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net>:
>> Or did you mean that you lent money to the borrower and took title as
>> "lienholder"? In that case, again, you are not liable for wha
|
|
|
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net>:
>> Or did you mean that you lent money to the borrower and took
>> title as "lienholder"? In that case, again, you are not liable
>> for what the driver does.
>
> In s
|
|
|
dav1936531@nowhere.com wrote:
>This action will be filed in US Federal Court.
So your primary reference should be to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as well as the substantive rules of law set out in the ADA.
But you will also need to familiari
|
|
|
On 15 Sep 2006, dav1936531@nowhere.com wrote:
> [ I believe a have a valid basis to sue in a U.S. district
> court for Americans with Disabilities Act relief but
> want to do so anonymously since I do NOT want my
> real name to become a permanent ca
|
|
|
[OP ("Dave") wishes to proceed in Federal Court against a former
employer, against OP's state of residence and against the United States
for a cause of action arising under the Americans with Disabilites Act.
OP asks how to do so anonymously.]
I bel
|
|
