|
|
|
I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable. I do not have a
typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the solution? (I don't
want to spend $450 on Adobe Professional, which I believe could be
used to "correct" the .pdf form I have.)
I checked the local rules for the Northern District of California,
and pro se petitioners HAVE to use the court supplied form (the .pdf
form on their web site is the same as the one that is mailed).
Attorneys, however, can type up a form containing the same
information.
I found a free fillable .pdf form for a 2254 habeas petition (you
fill in the district), but the format is a lot different, which is not
acceptable according to the local rules, since I'm proceeding pro se.
I really don't understand why their .pdf form is not fillable (or
why they make life so much easier for attorneys). You have to have a
computer to read their .pdf file - it only makes sense to fill it out
BEFORE your print it out, so your data is more readable.
Any help is appreciated.
(BTW - I know that most people filing 2254 petitions are in jail or
prison. This is the right form, even though I'm not in custody. All
probationers and parolees (and some others) are "in state custody" for
purposes of federal habeas corpus petitions (state conviction, of
course.))
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it. The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting." What
gives that person the right to cancel my post? Bernie said I was
welcome to repost it to misc.legal. Repost it? What about the other
groups I originally posted it to? Who is Bernie to block a message
from going to other groups? Who is Bernie to overrule Google's
crossposting rules? (The message was posted by Google.) Google doesn't
allow "excessive crossposting." -So a week later I learn my message
was blocked and I have to start over. If this also offends you, please
send a complaint to Bernie Cosell <mlmmod@rev.net>, or if you know an
e-mail address of someone who can actually do something about someone
cancelling someone's elses post, please send this to them, and/or let
me know their e-mail address.]
Nancy
|
| |
| |
I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable. I do not have a
typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the solution? (I don't
want to spend $450 on Adobe Professional, which I believe could be
used to "correct" the .pdf form I have.)
[Snip]
Uhhhhh...
Go to Adobe.com and DownLoad the 30-Day Trial Version of Acrobat 6.0...
(Acrobat is Rather User-UNfriendly BTW)
The only Other Way to "Fill In" a DownLoad .pdf is to PRN it and use a
TypeWriter...
You might also Peruse College Bookstores or WebSites for an Academic
Version...
Any help is appreciated.
(BTW - I know that most people filing 2254 petitions are in jail or
prison.
Nonsense...
This is the right form, even though I'm not in custody. All
probationers and parolees (and some others) are "in state custody" for
purposes of federal habeas corpus petitions (state conviction, of
course.))
Also Nonsense...
Geez... it gets Easier n' Easier to Spot The Loonies...
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it.
Yeah... I Wonder just what you *know* about "illegal[ly]"...
The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting." What
gives that person the right to cancel my post?
1. He DIDN'T "cancel" your Post... He *Declined* to Be Implicit in your
Infuriating Practice of EXCESSIVE CrossPosting...
2. His Authority as ModerMeister gives him "the right"
Bernie said I was
welcome to repost it to misc.legal. Repost it? What about the other
groups I originally posted it to? Who is Bernie to block a message
from going to other groups? Who is Bernie to overrule Google's
crossposting rules? (The message was posted by Google.) Google doesn't
allow "excessive crossposting." -So a week later I learn
[FUCK!!!]
JEZus H CHRIST!!!!
STOP yer Snot-Nose PUNK WHINING _AND_ Shut The Fuck UP...
Nancy
Naughtius "FUCK CrossPosters" Maximus
|
| |
| |
On 13 Sep 2004 20:40:51 -0700, nancyj74@hotmail.com (nancy johnson)
wrote:
I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable. I do not have a
typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the solution? (I don't
want to spend $450 on Adobe Professional, which I believe could be
used to "correct" the .pdf form I have.)
You can buy Acrobat (you can't use just the free Reader, but you don't
need the expensive Professional), design your form on top of the pdf,
fill it in, and print it.
That's a lot more cost and work than finding a typewriter, at least it
would be for most of us.
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it. The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting."
If Bernie Cosell said it was, then it was. M.l.m. has rules against
crossposting, and he enforces them. It ain't the least bit illegal, so
don't go around defaming him if you want anybody to take you
seriously.
--
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it.
If you believe the moderator committed a crime, then you have a duty to
report that crime to the law enforcement authorities. Please post the date
and time you reported this to the law, as well as the jurisdiction. He's
blocked some of my posts before, and I'd like to see how you handled it.
If you *haven't* reported this crime, then you lied when you claimed it was
a crime.
|
| |
| |
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it.
When, where and to whom did you report this crime? If not, why not? Are you
shirking your social duties?
The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting." What
gives that person the right to cancel my post?
He's the moderator of a moderated group. *That* gives him the right.
Bernie said I was
welcome to repost it to misc.legal. Repost it? What about the other
groups I originally posted it to? Who is Bernie to block a message
from going to other groups?
He didn't. He only blocked a message going to the group he moderates.
Who is Bernie to overrule Google's
crossposting rules?
He didn't. He has nothing at all to do with Google. That you seem to think
he does says a lot about how much you know about how newsgroups work.
(The message was posted by Google.)
*Among many other places.* For one thing, *I'm* not getting it from Google.
Google doesn't
allow "excessive crossposting."
Let's see the facts, as *you* described them. The moderator of one group
cancels your message to that group because of "excessive crossposting". You
yourself say that Google doesn't permit "excessive crossposting". How do you
know that your message to the other groups wasn't blocked by Google itself,
since *you* broke Google's rules?
-So a week later I learn my message
was blocked and I have to start over.
That's why you 1. *use a real newsreader* and 2. compose your posts offline,
and keep a copy.
If this also offends you
Why would I complain to Bernie Cosell about your post? If you had followed
the group's rules, then your post wouldn't have been cancelled. It's clear
from the groups you sent this post to that you haven't learned and are still
breaking the rules. You should expect this post to be blocked as well.
|
| |
| |
I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable. I do not have a
typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the solution?
What' stopping you from printing it and filling it out by hand if you don't
want to type it?
|
| |
| |
Hi, Not all PDF forms are interactive, allowing you to fill in the form
online. You might be able to go to a Kinko's or any self service type store,
save the form to the local computer, fill it out, then print it out. You
might also be able to find a useable typewriter at goodwill for $25.
Good luck
Dave
- - - - - - -
USA Business Resources http://www.Network2020.com/go
USA Legal Resources http://www.Network2020.com/resources
I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable. I do not have a
typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the solution? (I don't
want to spend $450 on Adobe Professional, which I believe could be
used to "correct" the .pdf form I have.)
I checked the local rules for the Northern District of California,
and pro se petitioners HAVE to use the court supplied form (the .pdf
form on their web site is the same as the one that is mailed).
Attorneys, however, can type up a form containing the same
information.
I found a free fillable .pdf form for a 2254 habeas petition (you
fill in the district), but the format is a lot different, which is not
acceptable according to the local rules, since I'm proceeding pro se.
I really don't understand why their .pdf form is not fillable (or
why they make life so much easier for attorneys). You have to have a
computer to read their .pdf file - it only makes sense to fill it out
BEFORE your print it out, so your data is more readable.
Any help is appreciated.
(BTW - I know that most people filing 2254 petitions are in jail or
prison. This is the right form, even though I'm not in custody. All
probationers and parolees (and some others) are "in state custody" for
purposes of federal habeas corpus petitions (state conviction, of
course.))
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it. The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting." What
gives that person the right to cancel my post? Bernie said I was
welcome to repost it to misc.legal. Repost it? What about the other
groups I originally posted it to? Who is Bernie to block a message
from going to other groups? Who is Bernie to overrule Google's
crossposting rules? (The message was posted by Google.) Google doesn't
allow "excessive crossposting." -So a week later I learn my message
was blocked and I have to start over. If this also offends you, please
send a complaint to Bernie Cosell <mlmmod@rev.net>, or if you know an
e-mail address of someone who can actually do something about someone
cancelling someone's elses post, please send this to them, and/or let
me know their e-mail address.]
Nancy
|
| |
| |
On 13 Sep 2004, nancyj74@hotmail.com (nancy johnson) wrote:
[My reading of] the local rules for the Northern District of
Calfornia [persuades me that] pro se petitioners [for federal
habeas corpus relief] HAVE to use the court supplied form
(the .pdf form on their web site is the same as the one that
is mailed). *** I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable.
I do not have a typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the
solution [other than buying expensive software to do this]?
If by your "it" in "want[ing] it printed" you're suggesting that
you're having trouble printing out a downloaded *.pdf file, your
apparent related assumption that one needs to buy software to do this
raises the question, Why not just use the non-fee, widely-available,
easily downloadable "Acrobat" program to do so?
If, however, your "it" merely concerns your annoyance that an attorney
but not you, pro se, may use their own forms, using a typewriter if
they wish, perhaps you will benefit from solving then if you want
acting on the solution to the riddle, Recalling what one's parent or
kindergarden or 1st grade teacher taught about how to print, what
mkight be a to you helpful use for a pen?
If you nevertheless feel constrained to use a typewriter, bearing in
mind that you emphasize that you are not incarcerated in prison, it is
also open to you to solve then if you want act on the solution to the
riddle, What probably will occur if you ask your local public
librarian to allow you to use one of its such devices or, failing
that, if you were to go to a "Kinkos" or some like establishment
(albeit in that case for a modest fee)?
[ I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it as "excessive
crossposting" though I suspect that he doesn't have
a right to do that and contend he the moderator also
has not right to overrule Google's crossposting rules. ]
This is ridiculous and also betrays an ignorance of long-established
actualities. A basic purpose of a "moderated" internet/Usenet
"newsgroup" is to vest in the moderators the responsibilty -- and
hence also "right" -- to decide within the guidelines for the
particular "newsgroup" what submissions to accept for public postings.
And over the years, including presently, the moderators of
misc.legal.moderated generally perform this task very ably (even if,
on occasion, a bit slowly).
These correstions of your misassumptions ordinarily would not require
noting if the context you provide was not your related complaint about
what you emotionally experience as arbitrariness about the N.D.
Calif.'s pro se rule for habeas filings which you express, however, in
angrilly hyperbolic but just conclusory and also irrelevant or
otherwise incorrect terms ("illegal"! "overrule Google!"). In other
words, if these sorts of unfounded generalizations will also be found
in and therefore taint your habeas petition, you probably ought not
bother to file it, since your indulging in that sort of rhetoric will
be a virtual invitation for its denial (regardless whether your
petition is typed or hand-printed).
Calm down. Pay attention to the actually important.
Nancy
|
| |
| |
Prepare Yourself for a Trial, Representing Yourself, or assisting your
lawyer to prepare. Trial procedure, sequence of presentation, evidence,
witnesses, experts, scientific evidence, tactics, overcoming the other
side's "dirty tricks", pretrial maneuvering, trial memorandum, making a
record in case you are prevented from presenting your full case, what to do
about a bad, inattentive or unprepared judge, more!
Videotape #4 1 3/4 hour VHS -- $19.95 plus $3.85 Priority Mail Postage
Whether you are representing yourself in court, or have a
lawyer you wish to assist or monitor, these VHS Videos,
presented to live audiences at conventions of the
National Congress for Fathers and Children, by Bob Hirschfeld, JD,
provide an easily learned foundation:
#1 Basic Civil Procedure; Rules of the Trial Court $23.80 postpaid
#2 Representing Yourself on Appeal $23.80 postpaid
#3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 postpaid
#4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 postpaid
#5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 postpaid
Or purchase all five tapes for $99.00 postpaid
http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/noabogado/lawtapes.htm
|
| |
| |
Prepare Yourself for a Trial, Representing Yourself, or assisting your
lawyer to prepare. Trial procedure, sequence of presentation, evidence,
witnesses, experts, scientific evidence, tactics, overcoming the other
side's "dirty tricks", pretrial maneuvering, trial memorandum, making a
record in case you are prevented from presenting your full case, what to do
about a bad, inattentive or unprepared judge, more!
Videotape #4 1 3/4 hour VHS -- $19.95 plus $3.85 Priority Mail Postage
Whether you are representing yourself in court, or have a
lawyer you wish to assist or monitor, these VHS Videos,
presented to live audiences at conventions of the
National Congress for Fathers and Children, by Bob Hirschfeld, JD,
provide an easily learned foundation:
#1 Basic Civil Procedure; Rules of the Trial Court $23.80 postpaid
#2 Representing Yourself on Appeal $23.80 postpaid
#3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 postpaid
#4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 postpaid
#5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 postpaid
Or purchase all five tapes for $99.00 postpaid
http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/noabogado/lawtapes.htm
|
| |
| |
Prepare Yourself for a Trial, Representing Yourself, or assisting your
lawyer to prepare. Trial procedure, sequence of presentation, evidence,
witnesses, experts, scientific evidence, tactics, overcoming the other
side's "dirty tricks", pretrial maneuvering, trial memorandum, making a
record in case you are prevented from presenting your full case, what to do
about a bad, inattentive or unprepared judge, more!
Videotape #4 1 3/4 hour VHS -- $19.95 plus $3.85 Priority Mail Postage
Whether you are representing yourself in court, or have a
lawyer you wish to assist or monitor, these VHS Videos,
presented to live audiences at conventions of the
National Congress for Fathers and Children, by Bob Hirschfeld, JD,
provide an easily learned foundation:
#1 Basic Civil Procedure; Rules of the Trial Court $23.80 postpaid
#2 Representing Yourself on Appeal $23.80 postpaid
#3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 postpaid
#4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 postpaid
#5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 postpaid
Or purchase all five tapes for $99.00 postpaid
http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/noabogado/lawtapes.htm
|
| |
| |
Prepare Yourself for a Trial,
Which is what you'll have if you try to get a straight answer from this
disbarred lawyer who ran to Mexico to avoid the law. Ask his former clients
about his services- you can find them via the Arizona Bar.
|
| |
| |
Prepare Yourself for a Trial,
Which is what you'll have if you try to get a straight answer from this
disbarred lawyer who ran to Mexico to avoid the law. Ask his former clients
about his services- you can find them via the Arizona Bar.
|
| |
| |
Prepare Yourself for a Trial,
Which is what you'll have if you try to get a straight answer from this
disbarred lawyer who ran to Mexico to avoid the law. Ask his former clients
about his services- you can find them via the Arizona Bar.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote
Which is what you'll have if you try to get a straight answer from this
disbarred lawyer who ran to Mexico to avoid the law. Ask his former
clients
about his services- you can find them via the Arizona Bar.
It's good stuff; acquaintance of mine got them.
Lawyers think pro-se's made some kinda choice about being without counsel.
Hell: needs must, and lawyers make it hard to learn about what's going on
and how you deal with it. Pro-se's need all the help they can get, and the
legal community is, by and large, restricted or reluctant to give even the
simplest assistance at a realistic price.
Hirschfeld may be a rogue lawyer- may even have some sad times behind him;
whatever- an honest lawyer would be a first anyway.
A rogue lawyer is the only one that's going to tell you the straight skinny
in any case- certainly can't expect it of the legal community themselves-
it's their rice bowl and they guard it closely.
Try and find out the information somewhere else and see how far you get.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Naughtius \"The Twinkies Made Me Do It\" Maximus" <bloggo@BUTTFUCKjesus.org> wrote in message news:<ZLGdnfB8_ZZu8tvcRVn-sg@adelphia.com>...
(BTW - I know that most people filing 2254 petitions are in jail or
prison.
Nonsense...
Also Nonsense...
Geez... it gets Easier n' Easier to Spot The Loonies...
Well, you non-Loonie, here's the relevant stuff from the habeas form,
which shows I am CORRECT: (Note specifically "IN STATE CUSTODY,"
"judgement of a state court," and "Custody means being in jail, on
parole or probation, etc.")
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/form.nsf/7813fd3053452aef88256d4a0058fb31/c11ba1faea50424588256d4a0058f1e8/$FILE/PetitionHC-6-02.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254
I. Scope of 28 U.S.C. 2254
You may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
2254 if you are in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court
in violation of the federal Constitution or federal laws.
....
A. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
1. What sentence are you challenging in this petition?
(d) Are you now in custody serving this term? (Custody means being in
jail, on
parole or probation, etc.) Yes No
Where?
Name of Institution:
Address:
---------------------------------------------------------
The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting." What
gives that person the right to cancel my post?
1. He DIDN'T "cancel" your Post... He *Declined* to Be Implicit in your
Infuriating Practice of EXCESSIVE CrossPosting...
2. His Authority as ModerMeister gives him "the right"
No, he actually cancelled it. The message never showed up on the other
groups.
And no, he doesn't have the right to cancel my posts to other groups,
only the one he moderates.
Here is the e-mail he sent me:
-----------------------------------------------------------
From : MLM Moderator <mlmmod@rev.net>
Sent : Thursday, September 9, 2004 10:32 AM
To : nancyj74@hotmail.com
Subject : (fwd) Need habeas form (2254) - Adobe/fillable - how?
Received: from mail.rev.net ([206.67.68.99]) by mc6-f3.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:32:49 -0700
Received: from fantasy-laptop (natpool-139.rev.net [63.83.247.139]
(may be forged))by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id
i89AWms5014998for <nancyj74@hotmail.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:32:48
-0400
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jE/pgNZMmfd3bTnof03KnIR
Message-ID: <4179313b.2032614354@mail.rev.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-Antivirus: Scanned by F-Prot Antivirus (http://www.f-prot.com)
X-Antivirus-Summary: Mod score: 0
Return-Path: mlmmod@rev.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2004 10:32:51.0019 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5B88B1B0:01C49658
Your submission to misc.legal.moderated has been rejected
for the following reason(s):
Excessive crossposting
Your rejected submission has been attached to this message and you are
cordially invited to repost the message after making appropriate
changes, or to post it to misc.legal.
--
Bernie Cosell
moderator: misc.legal.moderated
.... [ the message I tried to post followed]
-----------------------------------------------------
Note he says I am "invited" to post it to misc.legal. Well, misc.legal
was already on the list, and I shouldn't have to repost it.
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green <cj.green@att.net> wrote in message news:<fn1dk0lm3jvc9rfidrgoqap6q9m2hsflb7@4ax.com>...
On 13 Sep 2004 20:40:51 -0700, nancyj74@hotmail.com (nancy johnson)
wrote:
If Bernie Cosell said it was, then it was. M.l.m. has rules against
crossposting, and he enforces them. It ain't the least bit illegal, so
don't go around defaming him if you want anybody to take you
seriously.
If Bernie said it was excessive then it was? You think he is God?
Google, which the message was posted through, does not allow excessive
crossposting. If you enter too many groups it will give an error
message and ask you to select fewer groups. Google accepted my post,
so they don't find it excessive.
He has no right to block my posts to other groups. Period. He should
have just blocked it from appearing on the group he moderates.
Here is the e-mail he sent me:
-------------------------------------------------------
From : MLM Moderator <mlmmod@rev.net>
Sent : Thursday, September 9, 2004 10:32 AM
To : nancyj74@hotmail.com
Subject : (fwd) Need habeas form (2254) - Adobe/fillable - how?
Received: from mail.rev.net ([206.67.68.99]) by mc6-f3.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:32:49 -0700
Received: from fantasy-laptop (natpool-139.rev.net [63.83.247.139]
(may be forged))by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id
i89AWms5014998for <nancyj74@hotmail.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:32:48
-0400
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jE/pgNZMmfd3bTnof03KnIR
Message-ID: <4179313b.2032614354@mail.rev.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-Antivirus: Scanned by F-Prot Antivirus (http://www.f-prot.com)
X-Antivirus-Summary: Mod score: 0
Return-Path: mlmmod@rev.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2004 10:32:51.0019 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5B88B1B0:01C49658
Your submission to misc.legal.moderated has been rejected
for the following reason(s):
Excessive crossposting
Your rejected submission has been attached to this message and you are
cordially
invited to repost the message after making appropriate changes, or to
post it to
misc.legal.
--
Bernie Cosell
moderator: misc.legal.moderated
.... [ the message I tried to post followed]
------------------------------------------------
Note he says I am "invited" to repost it to misc.legal. Well, that
group was already on the list, and he shouldn't have blocked it.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2jE1d.155246$%n4.58673@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it.
If you believe the moderator committed a crime, then you have a duty to
report that crime to the law enforcement authorities. Please post the date
and time you reported this to the law, as well as the jurisdiction. He's
blocked some of my posts before, and I'd like to see how you handled it.
If you *haven't* reported this crime, then you lied when you claimed it was
a crime.
I reported it to "postmaster" and "abuse" at rev.net and
moderators.isc.org (the two sites related to his e-mail) in accordance
to the FAQ for the .net-abuse newsgroup, on 09-13-2004. I don't know
who else to report it to, which is why I asked.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<PqE1d.155290$%n4.79811@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
When, where and to whom did you report this crime? If not, why not? Are you
shirking your social duties?
I reported it to "postmaster" and "abuse" at rev.net and
moderators.isc.org (the two sites related to his e-mail) in accordance
to the FAQ for the .net-abuse newsgroup, on 09-13-2004. I don't know
who else to report it to, which is why I asked.
The person, Bernie Cosell
He's the moderator of a moderated group. *That* gives him the right.
Bernie said I was
He didn't. He only blocked a message going to the group he moderates.
Wrong. He blocked the message to all the groups. I got his e-mail, and
the message never showed up on the other groups.
He didn't. He has nothing at all to do with Google. That you seem to think
he does says a lot about how much you know about how newsgroups work.
*Among many other places.* For one thing, *I'm* not getting it from Google.
I said I posted it via Google. Can't you read? I am aware that
messages get routed through different servers, and I could care less
how you read your messages.
Let's see the facts, as *you* described them. The moderator of one group
cancels your message to that group because of "excessive crossposting". You
yourself say that Google doesn't permit "excessive crossposting". How do you
know that your message to the other groups wasn't blocked by Google itself,
since *you* broke Google's rules?
I "broke" Google's rules? If you name too many groups on their form,
they give you a message to select fewer groups. (If they do something
after you post it, which is not applicable here, they would send you
an e-mail.)
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<GrE1d.155297$%n4.79487@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
What' stopping you from printing it and filling it out by hand if you don't
want to type it?
Nothing. If I was handicapped I would have said so. I would just like
it printed so it's neater and will be easier for the judge to read -
so I asked if someone has suggestions...
|
| |
| |
I don't know
who else to report it to, which is why I asked.
You said it was a crime. Traditionally, crimes are reported to the police.
What law enforcement jurisdiction did you report this crime to?
He didn't. He only blocked a message going to the group he moderates.
Wrong. He blocked the message to all the groups. I got his e-mail, and
the message never showed up on the other groups.
He doesn't have the ability to block it outside of the groups he moderates.
How do you know the servers at the other end didn't block it? After all,
*you* said that Google blocked it because of excessive crossposting. Bernie
Cosell doesn't control Google.
He didn't. He has nothing at all to do with Google. That you seem to
think
he does says a lot about how much you know about how newsgroups work.
(The message was posted by Google.)
*Among many other places.* For one thing, *I'm* not getting it from
Google.
I said I posted it via Google. Can't you read?
I can read that, as *you yourself quoted*, you said it was posted "by
Google".
Google doesn't
allow "excessive crossposting."
I "broke" Google's rules?
By your own words, as quoted above.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<GrE1d.155297$%n4.79487@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
I have a .pdf for this form, but it is not fillable. I do not have a
typewriter, and want it printed out. What's the solution?
What' stopping you from printing it and filling it out by hand if you
don't
want to type it?
Nothing. If I was handicapped I would have said so. I would just like
it printed so it's neater and will be easier for the judge to read -
so I asked if someone has suggestions...
You have the answer yourself- type it.
Also, since your question is more of a legal matter, then adding the adobe
newsgroups explained in all the necessary detail why your message was
cancelled by Google and Bernie Cosell.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote
It's good stuff; acquaintance of mine got them.
Then why doesn't the Disbarred Wonder post your acquaintence as a satisfied
customer?
Try and find out the information somewhere else and see how far you get.
I've gotten very far, because the information is freely available to anyone
who takes the time and effort to go to the library. It's not secret in any
way.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2jE1d.155246$%n4.58673@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it.
If you believe the moderator committed a crime, then you have a duty to
report that crime to the law enforcement authorities. Please post the
date
and time you reported this to the law, as well as the jurisdiction. He's
blocked some of my posts before, and I'd like to see how you handled it.
If you *haven't* reported this crime, then you lied when you claimed it
was
a crime.
I reported it to "postmaster" and "abuse" at rev.net and
moderators.isc.org (the two sites related to his e-mail) in accordance
to the FAQ for the .net-abuse newsgroup, on 09-13-2004.
They are not authorized to prosecute crimes, so they are completely
irrelevant when it comes to taking care of what you claimed was a crime.
What law, specifically, do you think was broken?
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green <cj.green@att.net> wrote in message
news:<fn1dk0lm3jvc9rfidrgoqap6q9m2hsflb7@4ax.com>...
On 13 Sep 2004 20:40:51 -0700, nancyj74@hotmail.com (nancy johnson)
wrote:
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it. The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting."
If Bernie Cosell said it was, then it was. M.l.m. has rules against
crossposting, and he enforces them. It ain't the least bit illegal, so
don't go around defaming him if you want anybody to take you
seriously.
If Bernie said it was excessive then it was? You think he is God?
One doesn't have to be God in order to read the charter for the moderated
group to find out the permitted number of crossposted groups, then to count
the number of groups the post in question was crossposted to.
Google accepted my post,
so they don't find it excessive.
Clearly, someone or something at Google had a second thought and blocked it.
He has no right to block my posts to other groups. Period.
He *cannot* block your posts in any group other than the one he moderates.
He has full and complete authority to block your posts to the group he does
moderate.
Note he says I am "invited" to repost it to misc.legal.
Then do so.
Well, that
group was already on the list, and he shouldn't have blocked it.
*He didn't*. If your post was blocked from any group, it was done by Google.
Bernie Cosell *cannot* block a post to misc.legal.
|
| |
| |
When reading this, please note that esnesnommoc@urthlynk.com changed
my original language and sentence order in his reply (after the ">
".]
esnesnommoc@urthlynk.com wrote in message news:<41499e07.28161870@news.east.earthlink.net>...
On 13 Sep 2004, nancyj74@hotmail.com (nancy johnson) wrote:
[My reading of] the local rules for the Northern District of
If by your "it" in "want[ing] it printed" you're suggesting that
you're having trouble printing out a downloaded *.pdf file, your
apparent related assumption that one needs to buy software to do this
raises the question, Why not just use the non-fee, widely-available,
easily downloadable "Acrobat" program to do so?
"Fillable" is a term I found (while researching a solution) that
describes a .pdf form that lets you enter data. My printer works fine,
and I can read the .pdf file with Adobe. These things are obvious from
my message. Below the part you [mis]quoted above I said "I really
don't understand why their .pdf form is not fillable (or why they make
life so much easier for attorneys). You have to have a computer to
read their .pdf file - it only makes sense to fill it out BEFORE your
print it out, so your data is more readable."
Regarding your misquotes above([My reading of]and [persuades me
that]), here are the Local Rules: (An attorney can "word-process" the
same information found on the court form (make his own form), but a
pro-se petitioner can't.)
------------------------------
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/localrul.nsf/fec20e529a5572f0882569b6006607e0/f35ed41126f7d82c882568c00072232f?OpenDocument
2254-3. Filing Petition.
....
(d) Form and Content. Noncapital petitions shall be filed on a form
supplied by the Clerk, and shall be filled in by printing or
typewriting. In the alternative, the petition may be in a typewritten,
word-processed or other legible written form which contains all of the
information required by the Court's form.
(e) Pro Se Petitions. Noncapital petitions filed by persons who are
appearing pro se shall be on a form established for that purpose by
the Court and shall be completed in conformity with the instructions
approved by the Court. Copies of the forms, instructions and pertinent
provisions of these Habeas Corpus Local Rules shall be supplied to pro
se petitioners by the Clerk upon request or upon the filing of papers
which appear to be a request by a person appearing pro se for relief
which should be presented by a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2254.
----------------------------------------
If, however, your "it" merely concerns your annoyance that an attorney
but not you, pro se, may use their own forms, using a typewriter if
they wish, perhaps you will benefit from solving then if you want
acting on the solution to the riddle, Recalling what one's parent or
kindergarden or 1st grade teacher taught about how to print, what
mkight be a to you helpful use for a pen?
It appears you missed Kindergarden, and a lot more. I AM annoyed the
court allows attorneys to make their own (fillable) forms in a
modified format, but does not allow pro-se petitioners to do that. I
think it would be hard to use a cheaper product than Adobe to make a
fillable form or document that is exactly like the courts form, and if
I could, I don't think it would be appropriate to print the courts
form number on it. (Although if I could make it indistinguishable from
the courts form, I would go ahead and print it up, leaving off the
form number.)
If you nevertheless feel constrained to use a typewriter, bearing in
mind that you emphasize that you are not incarcerated in prison, it is
also open to you to solve then if you want act on the solution to the
riddle, What probably will occur if you ask your local public
librarian to allow you to use one of its such devices or, failing
that, if you were to go to a "Kinkos" or some like establishment
(albeit in that case for a modest fee)?
I'm not at all interested in using a typewriter. If I can't find an
easy way to type up the petition on a computer, then I will hand write
it. The local public library has the free Adobe reader, which cannot
be used to create forms, so that is not usefull to me. I don't know
about Kinko's, but the two copy centers nearby do not have computers
for their customers to use.
[ I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it as "excessive
crossposting" though I suspect that he doesn't have
a right to do that and contend he the moderator also
has not right to overrule Google's crossposting rules. ]
This actually read:
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it. The person, Bernie Cosell
<mlmmod@rev.net>, said it was due to "excessive crossposting." What
gives that person the right to cancel my post? Bernie said I was
welcome to repost it to misc.legal. Repost it? What about the other
groups I originally posted it to? Who is Bernie to block a message
from going to other groups? Who is Bernie to overrule Google's
crossposting rules? ...]
This is ridiculous and also betrays an ignorance of long-established
actualities. A basic purpose of a "moderated" internet/Usenet
"newsgroup" is to vest in the moderators the responsibilty -- and
hence also "right" -- to decide within the guidelines for the
particular "newsgroup" what submissions to accept for public postings.
And over the years, including presently, the moderators of
misc.legal.moderated generally perform this task very ably (even if,
on occasion, a bit slowly).
What, you don't believe me? He cancelled/blocked my post to other
groups. He said I am "invited" to re-post the message to misc.legal, a
group that was in the original newsgroups: header. I have attached his
e-mail at the end of this message. If you think someone ELSE may have
actually cancelled/blocked my message, you haven't said that. That
message never showed up on the other groups. I agree he can block
messages to the group he moderates. The other groups are none of his
business.
These correstions of your misassumptions ordinarily would not require
You have not identified any real "misassumptions." You have merely
demonstrated your incompetence.
Here's the original e-mail form the moderator:
--------------------------------------------
From : MLM Moderator <mlmmod@rev.net>
Sent : Thursday, September 9, 2004 10:32 AM
To : nancyj74@hotmail.com
Subject : (fwd) Need habeas form (2254) - Adobe/fillable - how?
Your submission to misc.legal.moderated has been rejected
for the following reason(s):
Excessive crossposting
Your rejected submission has been attached to this message and you are
cordially invited to repost the message after making appropriate
changes, or to post it to misc.legal.
--
Bernie Cosell
moderator: misc.legal.mo
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<afC2d.37671$zT6.23541@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
news:<2jE1d.155246$%n4.58673@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
[Side Note: I had to repost this, as the misc.legal.moderated
moderator illegally cancelled/blocked it.
If you believe the moderator committed a crime, then you have a duty to
report that crime to the law enforcement authorities. Please post the
date
and time you reported this to the law, as well as the jurisdiction. He's
blocked some of my posts before, and I'd like to see how you handled it.
If you *haven't* reported this crime, then you lied when you claimed it
was
a crime.
They are not authorized to prosecute crimes, so they are completely
irrelevant when it comes to taking care of what you claimed was a crime.
What law, specifically, do you think was broken?
It seems to me this was an illegal interception or blocking of
electronic communication. I would have to look it up in the federal
statutes. Maybe the law is not up to date on this. (Other than keeping
channels OPEN, I would prefer that the government kept its nose OUT of
the internet.)
In my original message I asked for suggestions on who to report this
to. If I had a specific statute, that might be a big clue.
|
| |
| |
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<siC2d.37692$zT6.6470@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
news:<fn1dk0lm3jvc9rfidrgoqap6q9m2hsflb7@4ax.com>...
On 13 Sep 2004 20:40:51 -0700, nancyj74@hotmail.com (nancy johnson)
wrote:
Clearly, someone or something at Google had a second thought and blocked it.
I have used Google a very long time. They have never done anything
without sending me an e-mail. I got the normal posting confirmation
from Google. I do not blame Google for this. The message obviously got
to that moderator, as I got the e-mail from him rejecting it.
Note he says I am "invited" to repost it to misc.legal.
Then do so.
You already read it, and replied to it...
|
| |
| |
| |
