|
|
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:
> The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed
> the dismissal of his frivolous suit, said that Ken had a right of
> appeal to the US Supreme Court, but didn't even try.
I understand that, accord
|
|
|
"Kevin Rudisill" <vigilance@justice.com> wrote in message
news:46819f8.0309130919.585d8b49@posting.google.com...
> Hi, we have a case where the opposition attorney's case has no merit
> so he has been throwing every dirty trick in the book at us. He
|
|
|
Rahul Dhesi wrote
"I personally believe that requirements to practise law should at worst be no
more stringent than requirements to run for public office."
makes sense to me, Rahul. But dontcha get the feeling that all us non lawyers
are at the lo
|
|
|
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:bk0alc$nth$1@blue.rahul.net...
> mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:
>
> > The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed
> > the dismissal of his frivolous suit,
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:18:53 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
>Dual jurisdiction.
> Different crime.
>
>
> Koon's lawyer might have argued it (DJ), as he should, but it
> doesn't look like even a close call. He got a sweatheart judge
> on t
|
|
|
"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f639877.23949856@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
> >"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
> >> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >> >
|
|
|
In article <none-1209032123450001@192.168.2.4>, Larry <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <bjsgak$eq1@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>
>>In article <none-1109032349230001@192.168.2.4>, Larry <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>In article
|
|
|
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB89BC30.7158%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article 3f638686.19355906@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, Merlin at
> mag@camelot.org wrote on 9/14/03 6:10 AM:
>
> > "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@char
|
|
|
"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f638686.19355906@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
> >"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> I remember right after the ADA was
|
|
|
I took this stuff called water out of the tap and put in bottles and gave it
away...apparently I'm stealing from all the bottled water companies...I was going to
open an oxygen bar too....ah hell that's another story
|
|
|
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB89B233.7140%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article nieporen-CEDC25.16081813092003@news.fu-berlin.de, David Marc
> Nieporent at nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu wrote on 9/14/03 5:08 AM:
|
|
|
"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-3BFD1C.16055413092003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <3F61CAEC.33A74F12@concentric.net>,
> Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Ernest Schaal wrote:
|
|
|
"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-5BC61F.16012713092003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <vm4tvbkfbr358f@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
> >"Ernest Schaal" <es
|
|
|
"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
>"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
>> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> >
>> >Agreed that they need probable cause, but the more you write in hyperbole
>> >the more I believe th
|
|
|
Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
>On 13 Sep 2003 15:07:39 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
>
>>Ted wrote
>>
>>"Yes. He had already been acquitted in stste court. Despite all the
>>politically inspired equivocation, the f
|
|
|
"Lawrence Seib" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:75ab6396.0309120614.48b82a6f@posting.google.com...
> "Gary - US" <gary_kcmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<FBR7b.22777$Fd2.14532@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > Not really. I am thin
|
|
|
I suggest you immediately forfeit all of your assets.
<ass_licking@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F639D01.10840.1AEC385@localhost...
> I took this stuff called water out of the tap and put in bottles and gave
it
> away...apparently I'm stealin
|
|
|
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>Ernest Schaal wrote:
[trim kens nonsence]
>> You should really read the cases you cite before citing them.
>
> And you really should try reading what I wrote before you stick
>your foot in your mouth
|
|
|
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>Larry Smith wrote:
>
>> I just can't see you losing all that investment, even if you have to
>> compromise just enough to get you past the hurdles.
>
> As I see it, this has gone way past the point where
|
|
|
> stupid, my ass ... he married for money and got nailed ....
>
Yes I did get nailed, yes I did marry for the money but she is also
very attractive. Anyhow, I don't want to get off topic. Doesn't
everyone marry for economic reasons...at least par
|
|
|
"McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote in message news:<bjvo22$n39ot$1@ID-75195.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Kevin Rudisill" <vigilance@justice.com> wrote in message
> news:46819f8.0309130919.585d8b49@posting.google.com...
> > Hi, we have a case where the opp
|
|
|
Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message news:<BB89A4A2.712D%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp>...
> in article nsq6mvg8h1945m4u4ki0r9dp4qms21m9hl@4ax.com, ptsc at
> ptsc@nowhere.com wrote on 9/14/03 4:18 AM:
>
> > Finally, California's Bar is
|
|
|
Bob Stock <bstock@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<s7q6mvofh0lof4u4rtmul6gr19ot62unkr@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:34:56 -0700, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I had a case against a Pro Per once. The judge bent over backwar
|
|
|
"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
>"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
>>
>> I remember right after the ADA was enacted, an FBI agent sued because he
>was
>> fired and he claimed that his gambling addiction caused
|
|
|
McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote in message news:<bjvo22$n39ot$1@ID-75195.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Kevin Rudisill" <vigilance@justice.com> wrote in message
> news:46819f8.0309130919.585d8b49@posting.google.com...
> > Hi, we have a case where the oppo
|
|
|
In article <3f637985.16026571@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org
(Merlin) wrote:
>Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>>ptsc wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:48:00 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have
|
|
|
On Tue 09 Sep 2003 11:42:02p while traveling through the dark and
mysterious land known as the Kingdom of Usenet in a never ending quest
for truth, justice, and glory in the name of her Serine Highness the
lovely and large breasted Princess Cindyann
|
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ptsc wrote:
>
>> Emperor Norton printed his own money and was able to convince enough people
>> to accept it in payment for goods and services that he lived rather well.
>
>Can this still work
|
|
|
In article <20030913162343.14517.00001281@mb-m12.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
>Larry Wrote
>
>"You simply can't have it both ways. Either law is a specialized field,
>requiring years of training at law school nad passing the ba
|
|
|
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>ptsc wrote:
>> As usual, every attempt to reason with you results in personal attacks and
>>crazed frothing. Next come the Nazi analagies.
>
> You could *reason* with me by addressing the issues I rai
|
|
|
ptsc wrote
"Oh, wait. You meant something FOR you. Expect to be declared a vexatious
litigant. Yet another of the tools corrupt California lawyers have to beat up
on Joe Average, and deliciously unconstitutional."
And for GOD'S SAKE *dont* try
|
|
|
Larry Wrote
"You simply can't have it both ways. Either law is a specialized field,
requiring years of training at law school nad passing the bar exam..."
I cant disagree with that.
"... in which case it's equally reasonable to say a speciailiz
|
|
|
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>ptsc wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:48:00 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I have no problems with a mental fitness requirement per se; all I am
>> >asking is that they define w
|
|
|
In article <1np6mvob0goi23eqticei9e14fitl7f2u0@4ax.com> ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> writes:
>Add in the fact that they can get $150,000 per infringement.
Let's clear up two misconception right now.
Statutory damages are awarded based on the number of w
|
|
|
Fluffygirl wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> ptsc wrote:
>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>> Let me put this another way: How do you think *you* would fare if Greta
>>>> Van Susteren and a few of her friends were sitting in judgment of YOUR
>>>> C&F r
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:05:23 GMT, ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:34:56 -0700, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote:
>>Nope. That's a common myth. People need to find some external reasons for
>>their failures, I guess. Judg
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:34:56 -0700, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote:
>Nope. That's a common myth. People need to find some external reasons for
>their failures, I guess. Judges don't give one hoot whether it's a Pro Per
>or an attorney who is f
|
|
|
On 13 Sep 2003 10:19:43 -0700, vigilance@justice.com (Kevin Rudisill) wrote:
>Hi, we have a case where the opposition attorney's case has no merit
>so he has been throwing every dirty trick in the book at us. He has
>taken untimely defaults, default
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:34:56 -0700, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com>
wrote:
>I had a case against a Pro Per once. The judge bent over backwards to avoid
>any appearance of prejudice. The judge allowed actions which caused me to
>make at least 3 uneces
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:36:58 GMT, "Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>"Joshua Heard" <jheard@novacron.com> wrote in message
>news:KAH8b.53453$cj1.10597@fed1read06...
>> All they can prove is that your computer was used to dl the songs. They
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:19:00 GMT, David Martel wrote:
> Rich,
>
> I suspect that you may try to resolve this issue in the manner you
> describe. But remember that an agreeable civil restitution will not absolve
> the hacker of any criminal liab
|
|
|
Ted Wrote
"Sometimes you gotta eat a little sh*t to climb a few steps up the ladder. But
just remember, you're not the only one."
Good Heavens !!!!! Shhhhhhhhh Shhhhhhh. If Voxie hears you, she will bring her
damned recipe of stinky bread over h
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:49:46 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
>Ernest Schaal wrote:
>
>> If you thought that probable cause was not found, you should have argued
>> that at the hearing, and in your brief to the Colorado Supreme Court
|
|
|
Draft 9/9/2003
Online suggestions and other general email to the library which do not
apply to borrowing or intellectual pursuits may be considered public records
as per Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 66, Section 10
http://www.state.ma.us/sec/pr
|
|
|
In article <3F631DF5.594DB495@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>ptsc wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:24:50 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Think about it. If you have to prove your mental fit
|
|
|
> I said it wasn't disparaging and that it does not IN ITSELF lend favor or
support to a particular faith. It's made of inanimate
> rock.
You've got to be kidding me. This is one of the most blatent examples of
rationalization I've seen in a whi
|
|
|
Q: If I email the library with a reference question will it be kept
confidential?
A: Yes, it is part of an intellectual pursuit which is protected by
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 78, Section 7.
Q: If I email the library with a
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll try to find out the venue.
BTW: I don't want to ask his lawyer for the info because they are having
major battles and I don't want to pay her any $$. Also, if I get involved
then they'll be using me to arbitrate (again) and I really d
|
|
|
On 13 Sep 2003 15:07:39 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
>Ted wrote
>
>"Yes. He had already been acquitted in stste court. Despite all the
>politically inspired equivocation, the federal charges represented double
>jeopardy."
>
>Fair
|
|
|
"Joshua Heard" <jheard@novacron.com> wrote in message
news:KAH8b.53453$cj1.10597@fed1read06...
> All they can prove is that your computer was used to dl the songs. They
> cannot prove YOU did it.
That's what I was thnking. Your ISP can canc
|
