|
|
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:15:12 -0400, threespeed18@hotmail.com wrote
(in article <hit9i21ferk9nstahpu8ugj5nut9c9jvmk@4ax.com>):
> My sister was recently involved in a minor accident. According to her
> (trying to be objective here), she was driving down
|
|
|
redfighter@spamcop.net wrote:
> Note crossposting.
>
> Mr Daneliuk seems to have me confused with another
> author. Regardless:
???
>
> OP stated that 'terrorists' are not protected by the Geneva
> Conventions. I pointed out that _prisoner
|
|
|
In article <6qici25le3h77m9af5sf111ct64s9tn3qh@4ax.com>,
Morely Dotes <morelydotes@spamblocked.com> wrote:
>"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
>news:ait9i292u0s428a8l9mde7aql6laehjbe0@4ax.com:
>
>> Here's a quote from a US case:
|
|
|
In article <2qici2hekiova45sbh2hhamb5avfjtm8mb@4ax.com>,
bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:
> In article <ec97i21p4e9kee6srgma723op112hn4va2@4ax.com>,
> Daniel R. Reitman <dreitman@spiritone.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:40:06 -0400, bgold@n
|
|
|
In article <0qici2lca837vb8gtv9vtvob3b9e8adinu@4ax.com>,
A Michigan Attorney <miattorney@gmail.com> wrote:
>The court explained:
.. . .
>"Gonzolez had flown [to Chicago] on a one-way ticket, which we have
>previously acknowledged is evidence in fav
|
|
|
Andy writes:
The recent postings about pedophilia and sexual predators have
prompted a question in my mind....
The law clearly states that soliciting sex from a minor is illegal
and has dire consequences.
But what about soliciting s
|
|
|
KurtS.331@gmail.com wrote:
> Earlier this afternoon a bust occurned next door to us. During this
> time we were in and out of the house doing rurnning around. Later
> after all was said and done and the cops/detectives left, we noticed
> HUGE tra
|
|
|
KurtS.331@gmail.com wrote:
> Earlier this afternoon a bust occurned next door to us. During this
> time we were in and out of the house doing rurnning around. Later
> after all was said and done and the cops/detectives left, we noticed
> HUGE tra
|
|
|
KurtS.331@gmail.com wrote:
> What I want to know is...is there a law reguarding law enforcement
> damaging property and having to pay to fix for it.
There may be a local law where you are (although I doubt it) or the police
may have a policy (form
|
|
|
You've all seen 'em - "Get a $XXX Gift Card for singing up with one of our
sponsors!" You sign up (a DVD club, a new credit card, whatever) and fulfill
whatever obligations you have there but despite numerous calls and / or
emails the gift card neve
|
|
|
[OP asked about a hypothetical where a couple has scheduled a large
wedding, but wants to put off the legal marriage a few days -- to the
new year -- for tax purposes. I suggested that they could hold a
public cermony without signing the marriage cert
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, obviously.
Neither am I in the following situation, nor do I anticipate being in
such a situation. Call me paranoid.
For the purpose of discussion, let's limit the scope of "Law" to
any/all forms of intellectual property.
|
|
|
tomthumb149@yahoo.com wrote:
> [Anyone know a Latin maxim to the effec that]
> if a contract requires one to do A, and doing A
> inherently excludes doing B, then the contract
> is understood as prohibiting B as one of its terms[?]
IOW, not "eju
|
|
|
tomthumb149@yahoo.com wrote:
> a latin phrase, which says in effect if
> a contract requires one to do A, and doing A inherently excludes doing
> B, then the contract is understood as prohibiting B as one of its
> terms.
Would that maybe be, "expre
|
|
|
What a horror story: (link to this story of the same title as the
Subject line of this email, at sfgate dot com.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/30/BUGTGKRHSF1.DTL
(Summary is: guy sold his bike, was paid by check, went to
|
|
|
Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>As a unilateral contract? I'd think so. But not necessarily. I
>remember the hypothetical on this point from law school:
>
>A 16 year old buys a car, drives it off the lot and smashes it into a
|
|
|
In article <epici25j7fpcvvaua3lpd31flb31i0iaqh@4ax.com>,
Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>As a unilateral contract? I'd think so. But not necessarily. I
>remember the hypothetical on this point from law school:
>
>A 16 year o
|
|
|
In article <epici25j7fpcvvaua3lpd31flb31i0iaqh@4ax.com>,
Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>I remember the hypothetical on this point from law school:
>
>A 16 year old buys a car, drives it off the lot and smashes it into a
>light p
|
|
|
I have some boilerplate arbitration text I have been using for some
contracts with folks in LA (reproduced below). I now need to adapt it
to conform to appropriate but essentially similar language for
contacts with people in NY, NY. I would be real g
|
|
|
Ripped Off wrote:
[OP passed a check in payment of a disputed debt for moving services on
the advice of her husband, with the stated intention of stopping
payment on the check.]
> Bottom line is that the moving company filed something with the
>
|
|
|
In article <cpici2tijted4j73bopc880sscmog5qft4@4ax.com>,
Ripped Off <rippedoff@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I live in the Dallas area and during a move last month, the moving
>company tried to rip me off by changing their
>not to exceed bid to a fixed bid w
|
|
|
fredfighter@spamcop.net wrote:
> Possibly he broke a Federal Law prohibitting the sending of sexually
> explicit communications over the internet to persons under the
> age of 18. AFAIK the age of consent in state law is not
> a relevent conside
|
|
