|
|
Today, Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:07:34 -0400, Two Buddha read a post from
Captain James T. Kirk <localhost@nobody> , Wicked Pete starting
telling fibs about hacking
SPNAK SPNAK
Oh and:
>Today, Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:00:42 GMT, Two Buddha read
|
|
|
In article <2045dc8b.0310140433.ac1f565@posting.google.com>, Beacon
<pierrelucpicard@voila.fr> writes
>Everyday, anti-American, racist, terrorist posts are being posted @
>soc.culture.irish + soc.culture.nordic + soc.culture.polish:
>
THE MAN WHO
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:09:57 +0100, "Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0138_01C3926D.9CC3E400
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-
|
|
|
Wrong. A person can never lawfully be convicted merely for demanding a
search warrant. It doesn't matter if no search warrant is needed. A demand
for a search warrant can never lawfully be converted into a crime and it
cannot be a lawful basis for a
|
|
|
From Ireland
http://www.online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=%203040050
Man freed after DNA evidence deemed not enough
2003-10-14 12:50:04+01
A Dublin man on trial for murder walked free today when the Central Criminal
Court jury was directed to
|
|
|
> >> >> So, Rayder, can you give us an example of an artificial person created by
> >> >> man's law?
> >> >>
> >> >> Jimmy
> >> >
> >> >Business Corporations. Incorported societies. In Canada, municipalities.
> >>
> >> Towns, cities, counties, p
|
|
|
I'm curious about whether an 'electronic oath' holds any legal value.
I came across an internet service that is provided for free. It wants you to
email a lot of information. After the information it wants you to type the
following 'statement':
|
|
|
I've never heard of electronic oaths (just signatures) but the fact that
they make you type the text is interesting. It sounds a bit dubious to me
though.
Kevin.
"futureworlds" <nobody@mail.futureworlds.it> wrote in message
news:7f6f93315eda8025
|
|
|
one@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message news:<none-1410030056270001@192.168.2.4>...
> In article <c30335e.0310131258.1aebc3cd@posting.google.com>,
> wowfee2@yahoo.com (Wowfee) wrote:
>
> >none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message
> news:<none-1010
|
|
|
n 11 Oct 2003 20:40:54 -0700, austinrayder2003@yahoo.com (Quantrell)
wrote:
>StaR <starweblaw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ssrgov8f3vhj963hss9h8ombg986c7mq4e@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:34:29 GMT, Stephen Jenuth
>> <jenuths@horace.h
|
|
|
In us.legal, JK <puckrobin73@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My question is...how far does client/attorney privilege go? How much
> can I tell a lawyer before crossing the line where he/she has to contact
> authorities? How can I best enlist legal aid without co
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:04:52 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
<hkt79@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:57:34 GMT, Tank Fixer <paul.the.cat.carrier@us.army.mil>
>wrote, in us.config:
>
>>In article <4vcbovs8tfnc1d6cds3vi5j0ejhv0bapff@4ax.com>, hk
|
|
|
Today, Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:00:42 GMT, Two Buddha read a post from
edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID (edward ohare) , Wicked Pete
starting telling fibs about hacking
SPNAK SPNAK
Oh and:
>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:04:52 GMT, Henrietta K
|
|
|
"Anon Poster" <nobody@ybodon.not> wrote in message
news:3f8b0afd.59579335@news.btinternet.com...
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:47:21 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
> <nutteing@quickfindit.com> wrote:
>
> >Over the weekend arrived at a working macro for 20
>
|
|
|
I've made up my mind to chuck it all but I have a number of outstanding
legal concerns which I would like to tie up before I go so no one else is
left to sort out my debt and responsibilities. The situation is fairly
complex and I really believe I need
|
|
|
n article <c30335e.0310131258.1aebc3cd@posting.google.com>,
wowfee2@yahoo.com (Wowfee) wrote:
>none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message
news:<none-1010032320230001@192.168.2.4>...
>>
>> Whay I am speculating the court's logic was (and this is jus
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:57:34 GMT, Tank Fixer <paul.the.cat.carrier@us.army.mil>
wrote, in us.config:
>In article <4vcbovs8tfnc1d6cds3vi5j0ejhv0bapff@4ax.com>, hkt79
>@earthlink.net says...
<...>
>> We had two marvelous proponents a couple of ye
|
|
|
In can.taxes StaR <starweblaw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ----------
> " Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the
> husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E.
> 146.
> ----------
That may well be the vi
|
|
|
In can.taxes StaR <starweblaw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:34:29 GMT, Stephen Jenuth
> <jenuths@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>In can.taxes Jimmy <jimmy_for_freedom@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, Rayder, can you give us an example of
|
|
