misc.legal

Chris Hayes wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > Larry

hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > > In article <1167547690.056837.137630@h40g2000cwb.go

Chris Hayes wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > In article <1167547745.747932.140060@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com= >, > > > > > "Chris Hayes" <ha

Chris Hayes wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > arizona@r=E2

Chris Hayes wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > arizona@r=E2lant.org wrote: > > > > > > On 29 Dec 2006 23:08:51 -0800, "Chris Hayes" <hayes1

Chris Hayes wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > > In article <1167547233.825252.324740@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,

Chris Hayes wrote: > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > In article <1167547690.056837.137630@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > "Chris Hayes" <haye

Larry wrote: > In article <1168056003.120550.124140@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167915095.520505.180990@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <haye

Larry wrote: > In article <1168055955.911400.191760@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167914970.215590.259990@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes

Larry wrote: > In article <1168055913.465803.202440@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167914935.803564.257980@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <haye

Larry wrote: > In article <1168055842.452322.124750@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167914896.220142.255500@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <haye

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > > arizona@r=E2lant.org wrote: > > > > > > > On

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > Your posts do all the proving for me, kiddo. > > > > > > I know > > > > I'm glad we agree. > > Yes And?

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > > > > > Chris Hayes wrote: > > > > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > >

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167846869.263612.133010@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > At least I don't pretend to be anything other than an

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167845259.461335.78750@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > >

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167844590.445719.42410@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > compuelf@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > h

PoliceExpert@Muchomail.com wrote: > Chris Hayes wrote: > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167844504.437462.14040@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > compuelf@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > ha

Larry wrote: > In article <va9rp2te6h2ler09jprvg94d6qskoeck53@4ax.com>, > chrishayes@fadmail.com wrote: > > > On 4 Jan 2007 05:08:01 -0800, hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > > > > >It's no wonder you morph so much. > > > > How does "hayes12@fadmail"

chrishayes@fadmail.com wrote: > On 4 Jan 2007 05:08:01 -0800, hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > > >It's no wonder you morph so much. > > How does "hayes12@fadmail" differ from "hayes13@fadmail"? You walk on all fours, don't you?

Larry wrote: > In article <1167915095.520505.180990@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167846869.263612.133010@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > hayes13@fadmail.com

Larry wrote: > In article <1167914970.215590.259990@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167844590.445719.42410@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes

Larry wrote: > In article <1167914935.803564.257980@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167844504.437462.14040@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes1

Larry wrote: > In article <1167914896.220142.255500@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > In article <1167844456.182482.111310@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Chris Hayes" <hayes

chrishayes@fadmail.com wrote: > On 4 Jan 2007 04:51:35 -0800, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Larry wrote: > >> In article <1167846869.263612.133010@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> hayes13@fadmail.com wrote: > >> > >>

In article <iounh.14$rz3.11@trnddc03>, Greyprof@msn.com says... > Depends on what court. If you are headed for small claims court then yes, > you can use the printout of the check as evidence of the contents of the > check, including the date, unl

In article <1168003397.497329.261680@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, responsiblegunowner@operamail.com says... > New report projects federal expenditures at four times the gross > domestic product > by Chris Martenson > > Prepare to be shocked. >

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:49:46 +1100, Rod Speed wrote: >> New report projects federal expenditures at four times the gross >> domestic product > > Another bare faced lie. You cant compare the total claimed commitments > into the future with a sing

On 2 Jan 2007 13:23:45 -0800, "WormtownRocks" <hunthurst@earthlink.net> wrote: >>Cyberiade. it Anonymous Remailer wrote: >> Because American voters predominantly support radical, >> left-wing, viciously Anti-Christian ILLiberal Atheism and all of >

"Terry" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message news:1167969376.817875.238200@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > If I have to go to court I have a question. > > I got a receipt from someone and they did not date the receipt. The > date of the transa

"Terry" <kilowatt@charter.net> writes: >This person could just issue himself payment. Right? Yes, he could. >Would this be a crime? Yes, it would. >He feels that you owe him the money. The fact that he feels that you owe him the money is

Its not exactly Shock and Awe -- more like "surge and purge" -- as some wags have named it, but there's a growing number of government officials and observers who now are firmly convinced that the Bushies are up TO MORE no good in Iraq. -----------

"Jonathan Kamens" <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote > It's a Federal crime to make an unauthorized transfer out of someone > else's bank account. The Federal agencies who investigate and > prosecute such crimes are sufficiently aggressive about them

Larry wrote: > In article <1167887092.806989.195380@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "Shakespeare711@hotmail.com" <Shakespeare711@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > THE REQUEST FOR THE COURT DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN RETURNED TO ME IN THIS > > DELIBERATE OBSTRUCTI

"Mike" <gouigoui@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d71a0$459e05fb$cef8be94$5402@TEKSAVVY.COM... > > "GeekBoy" <dadada@dooda.com> wrote in message > news:459d5dc8$0$15347$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com... >> >> "Mike" <gouigoui@gmail.com> wrote in

Note follow ups to consolidate with article posted separately to: politics.misc, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh H. E. Taylor wrote: > In article <c35rp2d55k4b8ei6ommvuk7f4q6r7cek6r@4ax.com>, > <citizenr@thsdfft.

But I think they may find out a LOT more about it, when then Dems start their oversight hearings in a short time with supoena power. kinkysr@yahoo.com wrote: > Yes, but your White House war criminal and his pals -- always thinking > foremostly about

Yes, but your White House war criminal and his pals -- always thinking foremostly about their good buddies at Halliburton and other "family member" contractors that have bilked the treasury of many billions of dollars -- don't want U.S. taxpayers to KN

The chances are EXCELLENT that YOUR personal mail has been tampered with for decades. Do you trust the likes of the Office of the President, FBI, CIA, Treasury-IRS, Defense Department, NSA, or, maybe much less, the U.S. Postal "Service"? C'mon!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/810011.html Is it good for Israel to have so many Jewish legislators? The Israeli ambassador to Washington, attending the NJDC reception, got a warm introduction. The Jewish legislators are pro-Israel, they

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:06:34 -0500, Glenn Kurtzrock wrote: > >> >>My question is 1) Are the police going to believe that? 2) Can they >>prove that its a lie? 3) What are the risks of doing this? > > 1 - No > > 2 - Probably > > 3 - Criminal