|
|
Read the case again. Coumas is exactly about the double jeopardy clause
.... but of the California, not the US, constitution.
You are not being flamed, and nobody said you were.
Perhaps you are reading the posts, and the case, too hastily and not i
|
|
|
"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote in message
news:larry-0601050145500001@192.168.2.4...
> Except for felony-murder. ;)
>
> (But I grant that it is a minority of serious crimes that are strict
liability)
True and keep in mind felony-murder is not a per
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
>> > the court was being a little too protective of the prosecutor.
>
> Speaking of being protective of prosecutors, it seems that your old
> mate Ted Kaldis' brother-in-law has gotten into a little hot water, as
> he stands
|
|
|
Well you're right, that stuff would be hard to prove. That's why it would
be left up to a jury to 'find' the 'truth.' I must admit I've never read
any child porn laws, so my answer is general. However, I'd suspect if you
indiscriminately downloaded
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> SolarChase wrote:
>>>>>> How much did Sarah get ?
>>>> That's between her and the insurance company.
>>> The fact th
|
|
|
I completely agree. I wondered why paypal was so adamant that it would be
great for me to use my checking account rather than my credit card. I
stayed away from doing it because I knew that when a company "strongly
recommends" something it's good for
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Ted's infuriated by the fact that I've beaten him silly in debate, and
>>> he's become obsessed with avenging those many resounding defeats by any
>>> means possible.
>> Ken
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> ienj, upon reading your incisive and cogent analyses, I basically feel
> redundant.
Good. So STFU already!
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
|
|
jls wrote:
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:41DDB6BB.5A6A5F81@worldnet.att.net...
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You k
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>You know squat.
>>>>
>>>>Geragos had better be sure that his client is squeky clean before he
>>>>sta
|
|
|
ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> You know squat.
> I don't know Cam Brown, [...] and I do know that while this case may end in
> acquittal that Geragos will have to work for the acquittal because the
> state does have a
|
|
|
LeMod Pol wrote:
> Court overturns Yates' convictions
>
> False testimony cited in case of woman who drowned her kids
>
> (CNN) -- A Texas appeals court in Houston on Thursday
> ordered a new trial for Andrea Yates, the woman who
> confessed to d
|
|
|
Not in the least; if we were criminal coddlers we'd support Tubby
Kennedy.
|
|
|
Why do you defend killers like laura bush? Do you like being a
criminal coddler?
|
|
|
will not waste my time arguing Newdow's fallacious and ludicrous
assertions but I will repeat my challenge to Newdow and any of the fools
that intend to follow him..
That is, I challenge any and all of the aetheists to take their fallacious
and ludi
|
|
|
'Bout the same, when it comes to the liberals.
|
|
|
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142&Sub
siteID=25
|
|
|
>>> Who sees the definition of protected computer?
>>>
>>> Discussion here:
>>>
>>> http://www.dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=787
>>
>>A legal group is better suited for law formats and stuff but I will
>>point you in a direction.
>>
>>It's
|
|
|
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Coumas absconded. Greece,
like many other countries, will not extradite their own citizens. But they
will try them for the offense. That's what happened. California only had to
refrain from a second prosec
|
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:49:34 GMT Falky foo wrote:
> Well you're right, that stuff would be hard to prove. That's why it
> would
> be left up to a jury to 'find' the 'truth.' I must admit I've never
> read
> any child porn laws, so my answer is ge
|
|
|
I think it's a little of both; they come up with some of the most
assinine stuff I've ever read.
|
|
|
Larry Glasser wrote:
>
> In article <41DDC6FD.9080406@it.com>, Ranger57@concentric.net wrote:
>
> >LeMod Pol wrote:
> >> Court overturns Yates' convictions
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >> The Texas First Court of Appeals ruled that the
> >> convic
|
|
|
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 06:00:32 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:OMMCd.48549$nP1.18324@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Michelle Malkin wrote:
>>> is showing a bunch o
|
|
|
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:06:50 GMT Larry Glasser wrote:
> In article <crk2db03ao@news3.newsguy.com>, "Richard"
> <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:25:58 GMT Larry wrote:
>>> In article <crig2i01208@news3.newsguy.com>, "Richard"
|
|
|
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:35:16 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Kate wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:53:39 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>> <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
>>
>> F
|
|
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:58:11 -0500, drift@lost.net wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:19:29 -0700, "Chas"
><chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Family Man" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>> Bull#@($. The pledge should be for all americans, not just t
|
|
|
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:21:47 -0700, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
>> By the way, did you know that the jewish have a specific rule against
>> using the name 'God'? So it's in direct violation of t
|
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:18:52 +0700, Jos Flachs
<"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:33:33 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
><usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The question is not between the religions, it's between deists and
>>>> athei
|
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:42:08 -0500, "Family Man" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:NtHCd.47459$nP1.25406@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Family Man wrote:
>>> "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast
|
|
|
Scott Hillard wrote:
> "democratix" <demokratix@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1104898638.007684.89180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > 1 - Arguments of economy and convenience, for using analogue
> > information (eg magazines, magnetic audio t
|
|
|
>> Who sees the definition of protected computer?
>>
>> Discussion here:
>>
>> http://www.dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=787
>
>A legal group is better suited for law formats and stuff but I will
>point you in a direction.
>
>It's in the
|
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:06:13 -0700, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
>>> like it if our public schools coerced your
|
|
|
Is it not true that if there was some federal crime that was committed (or
invented) as well that
if CA found him not guilty he could then be tried by the feds? This seems
to be popular with
prosecutors really gunning for someone.
"Larry" <larry
|
|
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> Copyright law is primarily designed to stop the ADVERTISING of
pirated
> material, for without that, the distribution network is stopped in
its
> tracks.
Yeah, but it would be a real worry if some system of mass-communication
|
|
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Good will and faith are not "control". Court orders are
prohibitively
> > expensive if you're faced with a situation in which there are no
> > centralised copyright infringing organisations; but rather a
world-wide
> > decentra
|
|
|
Scott Hillard wrote:
> "democratix" <demokratix@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105002181.639132.281130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The death of paper isn't as far off as you might think. Ok it's
done us
> > well for these last few tho
|
|
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > As far ac popyrights. Years ago, I sant with a tape recorder and a
> > sterio. I coppied music because I didn't have the money to buy
tapes
> > and records. Later on, I didn't know who wrote a song to go buy
it.
> > Also why
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com wrote:
> The reason Laura WELCH (do try to get your facts straight, idiot)
> wasn't charge with murder was because it was an ACCIDENT, not a
MURDER,
> dumbass. Of course, given your response in another thr
|
|
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > 1 - ISPs unwilling to give up the identity of their customers
merely
> > because some corporation is making a noise at them. There are
> > significant lawsuits in play about this issue at the moment.
>
> Those have to do with P
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> >>>> You know squat.
I don't know Cam Brown, but I do know that when targeting a suspect
police an
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> LeMod Pol wrote:
>> Larry Glasser wrote:
>>> Do you read, Kenny? Dr. Dietz testified as a PROSECUTION witness.
> Uh, that's why I put the term *in quotes*, Cub Pwossecuta. (BTW, long
> time, no see, mi amigo! ;) )
Ken wi
|
|
|
LeMod Pol wrote:
> the court was being a little too protective of the prosecutor.
So what else is new?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> LeMod Pol wrote:
>> The appeals court ruling found that Dietz did not intentionally lie and
>> the prosecution did not knowingly use false testimony.
> Suuuuuure, he didn't. Park Elliott Dietz is well known as one of the wors
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> The cross might go something like this:
>>> Hum: "Mr. Dietzler, you say that you knew Cam well?"
>>> W: "Yes."
>>> Hum: "Did you know, for instance, that Cam was a gay po
|
|
|
oil@vinegar.com wrote...
> MrPepper11 wrote:
>
> > Or how Bush lied for the insurance industry in Texas...
> >
> > 10/28/04
> > Malpractice Insurer Sees Little Savings in Award Caps
> > By JOSEPH T. HALLINAN and RACHEL ZIMMERMAN
> > Staff Report
|
|
|
For reasons I don't want to explore, on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:22:18 GMT,
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
[...]
> Most reasonable people can see, especially after viewing an aerial or
>surface photo (the one Ted provided) of the area, that it wou
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> Ted's infuriated by the fact that I've beaten him silly in debate, and he's
> become obsessed with avenging those many resounding defeats by any means
> possible.
Ken apparently suffers from delusions of grandeur as well.
--
|
|
|
My girlfriend who works at a bank just found out via her background
check that she was charged with theft from retail for under $300 (a
pack of cigaretts) and she missed her Lincoln, NE court date 2 years
ago because she says she never knew she was cha
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> SolarChase wrote:
>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
>>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Sarah and her new husband were preparing to move to Hawaii, [...]
>>>>> And how were they going
|
|
|
|
