|
|
Dave Rawson <TheGuy@DRawson.Com> wrote:
> MailNotRead@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> To sue someone in California Small Claims Court you must serve
>> them in California. The two exceptions are:
>> 1) You're suing about property located in California, and t
|
|
|
Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> New Mexico has a similar statute demanding full disclosure. I had
> a case where a material defect was found by the buyers right after
> possession. They didn't contest that the seller disclosed
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:20:58 -0400, Dave Rawson <TheGuy@DRawson.Com>
wrote:
>
>Thus, my extensive quest to get a definitive answer. We have initiated
>a handful of "consultations" with California Real Estate Attorneys, but
>have yet to receive an
|
|
|
In article <na7104d3tv2l1pek946ann1llts57t9nrc@4ax.com>,
MailNotRead@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:18 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure. Anybody can sue you anywhere for anything.
>
> I realize this is a generalization
|
|
|
n Apr 13, 7:20 am, Dave Rawson <The...@DRawson.Com> wrote:
> However, I read the explanation much as you state it, so I was confused
> and didn't entirely trust her understanding which she admitted was not a
> legal opinion, but her best guess based
|
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:20 am, Bob Stock <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:33:09 -0400, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:17:55 -0400 in misc.legal.moderated, Stuart
> >Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote,
>
|
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:20 am, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> MailNotR...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Sure. Anybody can sue you anywhere for anything.
>
> > I realize this is a generalization, but s
|
|
|
On Apr 12, 7:33 am, MailNotR...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:18 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure. Anybody can sue you anywhere for anything.
>
> I realize this is a generalization, but someone might take it
> literally an
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:20:39 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>Is that Wire Fraud?
I think fraud might be a bit of a stretch. All thinks point to a
clerical mistake.
>Do they do business in New York, or otherwise have nexus there?
I've le
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:20:24 -0400, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>In article <ea71041qs1av9bi1m2ikc4m39c08lc4kjb@4ax.com>,
> Hooliganz <brettharlow123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been renting a room for 18 months, and I'd like to
|
|
|
In article <i0r304l2oimudmkbn5qrquotuce2us7bc1@4ax.com>,
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>> One of my law school teacher's favorite scenarios:
>>
>> You are on the 10th floor of a tall office building. You look out
|
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:20 am, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> Stuart Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> >You are on the 10th floor of a tall office building. You look out the
> >window and you see someone you hate, who has apparently fallen off the
>
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:20:11 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>In article <s3iuv3hde40f76qh9duclua3p7aph3sbls@4ax.com>,
>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>I think "knowingly", "willfully", and "threat" together imply intent,
>
|
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:20:08 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>The report of a threat is not a threat.
>The letter is a threat, the original sender was convicted for sending
>it, so there's even a court ruling that it is a threat.
The lett
|
|
|
I saw a news report about this web site:
http://www.prosper.com/
I went to check it out and people there from PA are asking for loans, but
say the state only allows them to pay 6% interest for a loan. I live in PA
and the credit card companies get a
|
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:19 am, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> Oops. The radio call takes time; if the biker was going 120 mph, he'd
> reach Cop B less than one minute after the radio message. Even if he
> slowed to 60, it would be well under two minutes.
Su
|
|
|
Seth wrote:
> In article <897104hg3eo1e7j8qaue3gpb2kiu28kqdu@4ax.com>,
> Mike Jacobs <mjacobslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would also assume an observant Cop A and Cop B could each give a
>> more precise description of the motorcycle they saw if thi
|
|
