Legal Spring Logo

"Why Shop or Review Legal Services anywhere else?"
Reviewing Legal Services Online
 LEGAL SPRING
     


Google
 
 

 

Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
I noticed that Message-ID: <3F848E9A.37A1BF9@gta.igs.net> from Pulver contained the following: >> >Right. Politics has meaning concerning the topic. Legal has meaning >> >concerning the topic. Talk has no meaning concerning the topic, which >> >I


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote: >Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin >for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Now >if I just can summon the stamina and resou


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Now if I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that would be a major victor


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Henrietta K Thomas wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:04:51 -0400, Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> > wrote, in us.config: > > >Henrietta K Thomas wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:15:38 GMT, edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID > >> (edward


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Henrietta K Thomas wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:17:21 -0400, Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> > wrote, in us.config: > > >Geoff Berrow wrote: > >> > >> I noticed that Message-ID: <3F848E9A.37A1BF9@gta.igs.net> from Pulver > >> contained the


Re: Person vs man; what's the difference? II
erson vs man; what's the difference Squirmy? You may get Freddy and Jenuths to help you with this one if you wish. Q) One has to wonder why you continue to a question I have answered several times already. One has to wonder why one never gets


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
redc1c4 wrote: > > Geoff Berrow wrote: > > > > I noticed that Message-ID: <3F848E9A.37A1BF9@gta.igs.net> from Pulver > > contained the following: > > > > >> >Right. Politics has meaning concerning the topic. Legal has meaning > > >> >concer


FINAL RFD: create us.talk.constitution
Final Request for Discussion (RFD) unmoderated group us.talk.constitution This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create a new newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy, us.talk.constitution. This is not a call for votes. Newsgroup creation is b


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Now if I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that would be a major victor


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
I noticed that Message-ID: <3f842d8f.1094820@news.alt.net> from edward ohare contained the following: >Right. Politics has meaning concerning the topic. Legal has meaning >concerning the topic. Talk has no meaning concerning the topic, which >I t


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Geoff Berrow wrote: > > I noticed that Message-ID: <3F848E9A.37A1BF9@gta.igs.net> from Pulver > contained the following: > > >> >Right. Politics has meaning concerning the topic. Legal has meaning > >> >concerning the topic. Talk has no mea


Re: FINAL RFD: create us.talk.constitution
"Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:3F84BA6D.EA730B26@gta.igs.net... > > > Final Request for Discussion (RFD) > unmoderated group us.talk.constitution I express a negative due to not being us.politics.constitution


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
"redc1c4" <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message news:3F84BE6E.40BDF8D5@drunkenbastards.org.ies... > Geoff Berrow wrote: > > > > I noticed that Message-ID: <3F848E9A.37A1BF9@gta.igs.net> from Pulver > > contained the following: > > >


Re: Serious flaw with forensic DNA databases
"Anon Poster" <nobody@ybodon.not> wrote in message news:3f840c0f.51496268@news.btinternet.com... > On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:20:03 +0100, PeteM <postmaster@torquemada.net> > wrote: > > >Can anyone look at this spreadsheet and comment? > > I've had a lo


Please help me
Has anyone ever had the bar (or bond) attorney (the one who works a particular courthouse and tends to defend those not poor enough for the public defender but not willing to hire their own private attorney) defend them? If so, what do they typically


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Daryl Hunt wrote: > > "Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message > news:3F8426C6.C2062EB1@gta.igs.net... > > > > > > Daryl Hunt wrote: > > > > > > "Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message > > > news:3F83606E.6F508C42@gta.igs.net...


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 05:09:17 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make >decisions they are required to make are doing their job, even if it's >a "wrong" decision. The remedy for "wro


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Geoff Berrow wrote: > > I noticed that Message-ID: <3f842d8f.1094820@news.alt.net> from edward > ohare contained the following: > > >Right. Politics has meaning concerning the topic. Legal has meaning > >concerning the topic. Talk has no me


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:28:21 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote: >Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote: > >>Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin >>for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives m


Re: Person vs man; what's the difference? II
n 8 Oct 2003 06:27:47 -0700, austinrayder2003@yahoo.com (Quantrell) wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > Person vs man; what's the difference Squirmy? >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > You may get Freddy and Jenuths to help you wi


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:08:12 -0400, Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote: > > >Daryl Hunt wrote: >> >> "edward ohare" <edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message >> news:3f837a81.2583177@news.alt.net... >> > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:05:37


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
I noticed that Message-ID: <pb27ov0g6d3fafd5kb42kuio09cgvs2ffs@4ax.com> from Henrietta K Thomas contained the following: >> >>>us.talk.constitution Discussion of the US Constitution. >>>us.talk.constitution Non-political aspects of the


Re: Person vs man; what's the difference? II


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
"Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:3F8426C6.C2062EB1@gta.igs.net... > > > Daryl Hunt wrote: > > > > "Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message > > news:3F83606E.6F508C42@gta.igs.net... > > > > > > > > > Daryl Hunt wrote:


Re: Serious flaw with forensic DNA databases
Paul Nutteing <nutteing@quickfindit.com> averred > >"PeteM" <postmaster@bermuda.triangle> wrote in message >news:dP0DCLAVWJe$EwmQ@arcadia.net... >> Paul Nutteing <nutteing@quickfindit.com> averred >> > >> >You are ommitting one of the main factors.


Re: Question regarding Walkthrough inspection - in CA
In us.legal, J <joan_usus@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thanks for any advice. Unless your lease says otherwise, you have the right to exclusive posession of the apartment, and they have no right to enter just to take a look around. But OTOH, if they a


Re: Neighbor agrees to pay for damages
In us.legal, jjc <casperjcasper@yahoo.com> wrote: > This morning my roommate and I watched my neighbor accidentally run into my > car as she turned the corner where I was parked. She stopped and we agreed > to exchange information after work. She sto


Re: Serious flaw with forensic DNA databases
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:20:03 +0100, PeteM <postmaster@torquemada.net> wrote: >Can anyone look at this spreadsheet and comment? I've had a look and can't find any obvious flaws. I'm not sufficiently well versed in the underlying maths to be totally


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:04:51 -0400, Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote: > > >Henrietta K Thomas wrote: >> >> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:15:38 GMT, edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID >> (edward ohare) wrote, in us.config: >> >> >On Wed, 08 Oct 200


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Daryl Hunt wrote: > > "edward ohare" <edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message > news:3f837a81.2583177@news.alt.net... > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:05:37 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" <me@privacy.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > >Just put me back


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Daryl Hunt wrote: > > "Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message > news:3F83606E.6F508C42@gta.igs.net... > > > > > > Daryl Hunt wrote: > > > > > > "Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message > > > news:3F830273.160AAC37@gta.igs.net...


2003CAL_Elections: Schwarzenegger ad WH_Elections: GOP's trojan horse ?
2003CAL_Elections: Schwarzenegger ad WH_Elections: GOP's trojan horse ? [Also:In last decennia many "christians" from Democratic > Republican?] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reactions ONLY!!


Re: Judge Moore
A boob speaking to a room full of boobs. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz "Anonymous" <BigappleRemailer@Optonline.Net> wrote in message news:73OSGNX837901.5993518519@anonymous... > http://www.kingdom-connection.org/Bookstore/programmi


Re: Restricting Unsolicited Telemarketers should be constitutional
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:none-0710032137560001@192.168.2.4... > In article <blvebg$gkcs3$1@ID-165095.news.uni-berlin.de>, "jberger" > <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote: > > >47 USCS ยง 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
> Henrietta K Thomas wrote: > > > > The deadline is midnight tonight, anyway, so we are out of time. > > It would be helpful if you were more specific about TIME. After all USA spans FIVE time zones. Please state your choice.


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:04:45 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas <hkt79@earthlink.net> wrote: >On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:15:38 GMT, edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID >(edward ohare) wrote, in us.config: > >>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:53:25 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
Henrietta K Thomas wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:15:38 GMT, edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID > (edward ohare) wrote, in us.config: > > >On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:53:25 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas > ><hkt79@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > >


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:15:38 GMT, edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID (edward ohare) wrote, in us.config: >On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:53:25 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas ><hkt79@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >>Non-political/legal sounds a bit much. I wish I


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
"edward ohare" <edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message news:3f837a81.2583177@news.alt.net... > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:05:37 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" <me@privacy.net> > wrote: > > > >Just put me back into your filter. Your BS was much ea


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
"Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:3F83606E.6F508C42@gta.igs.net... > > > Daryl Hunt wrote: > > > > "Pulver" <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message > > news:3F830273.160AAC37@gta.igs.net... > > > > > > > > > Daryl Hunt wrote:


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
Jon Beaver wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: >> [Some bollocks, most likely.] > Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make decisions > they are required to make Such as, say, requiring a bar applicant to submit to a psychologic


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
Ken Smith wrote: > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >> Lyndon Johnson used to say, "Don't get into a pissing contest with a >> skunk." I suggest you heed his advice (though your post indicates that it >> might be too late for that). > Ted lives in a


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:53:25 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas <hkt79@earthlink.net> wrote: >Non-political/legal sounds a bit much. I wish I could >think of a better way to say it. :-( DIdn't this work for you? us.talk.constitution Current and hist


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: >In article <3F8355BF.5FB9D159@concentric.net>, Ken Smith ><Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > >>Merlin wrote: >> >>> none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: >>> >In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@ca


Re: Person vs Man; Please explain the difference Squirmy
n Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:57:34 GMT, StaR <starweblaw@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:00:25 -0700, "Arthur L. Rubin" > <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote: > > >Ron wrote: > > > >> . > >> > >> Person vs man; what's the d


Re: Person vs Man; Please explain the difference Squirmy
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:00:25 -0700, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote: >Ron wrote: > >> . >> >> Person vs man; what's the difference Squirmy? > >That's easy. All men are persons. ONLY when referenced to a role or part, a r


Re: Person vs Man; Please explain the difference Squirmy


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:10:04 +0100, Geoff Berrow <bl@ckdog.co.uk.the.cat> wrote, in us.config: >I noticed that Message-ID: <5kr3ovofc7urdknnhvfovdurc3930rqp0h@4ax.com> >from Henrietta K Thomas contained the following: > >>us.talk.constitution Discu


Re: 3rd RFD: create us.talk.constitution (revised)
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:05:37 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" <me@privacy.net> wrote: >Just put me back into your filter. Your BS was much easier to take then. >And others have expressed that us.talk is not the place for constitution. >There may be people that


Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards
In article <3F8355B0.E029E42B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > > If you just want a basic conceptual background, start reading some of >the cases applying 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (the most-used provision of the >Civil Rights