us.legal

"Stan Mould" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:bq0ik3$1sk4b2$1@ID-204250.news.uni-berlin.de... > > Well, at least we agree that the odious and unintelligent Mike Dean of xxx makes stupidly > obscure remarks, Husberk. As he knew it would be, a

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message news:3FC293E6.A3C2BC9E@not.pollis.net.au... > > > Neither is it a "crime" to be an active "criminal" according to that > "logic"!! I have heard there are people who want to decriminalise

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:45:10 -0600, Thomas Anantharaman <tsa@biostat.wisc.edu> > > >Arthur L. Rubin wrote: > >> >> A state (as most have) CAN declare >>that marijuana sale and use does not violated state laws, AND >>possibly that it is against

On 25 Nov 2003 20:42:55 -0500, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) >In article <7636svs9c3020e299l5id4ov1qgkuppogh@4ax.com>, >Al Lewis <big@boss.man> wrote: > >>Check the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - if state law does >>violate that, then i

"Here Kitty Kitty" <kittykittty@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bpjetf$1oafss$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de... > "Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:3FBC8049.A12430A1@privacy.net... > > Here Kitty Kitty wrote: > > > > > > "Her

"Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3FBC8049.A12430A1@privacy.net... > Here Kitty Kitty wrote: > > > > "Here Kitty Kitty" <kittykittty@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bpf9tl$1nmiqc$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > > >

"Here Kitty Kitty" <kittykittty@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bpgb9b$1ohc22$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de... > "Here Kitty Kitty" <kittykittty@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bpf9tl$1nmiqc$1@ID-204635.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > > > > Oh

"Purfffffect" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:bpednv$1iiega$1@ID-199229.news.uni-berlin.de... > > "Stan Mould" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:bpe9i6$1jap03$1@ID-204250.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > > "half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com>

"Bob Stock" <xxx@x.com> wrote in message news:7228svstiog0q4prf6apjck4enghlt4aqj@4ax.com... > > I don't mean to be offensive, but why would your client hire you to > research a legal issue? Why wouldn't she hire an attorney? She has > commercial, i

Seth Breidbart wrote: > In article <7636svs9c3020e299l5id4ov1qgkuppogh@4ax.com>, > Al Lewis <big@boss.man> wrote: > > >Check the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - if state law does > >violate that, then it is invalid, but pay close attention t

In article <7636svs9c3020e299l5id4ov1qgkuppogh@4ax.com>, Al Lewis <big@boss.man> wrote: >Check the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - if state law does >violate that, then it is invalid, but pay close attention to the 9th and >10th Amendements.

In article <0YQvb.26871$KI4.347@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Society for the protection of the unwary from unethical attorneys <cnm4urights@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message >news:bpjua7$4rc$1@panix5.panix.com...

In article <vkxub.1821$KI4.1126@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote: >"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message >news:3FBA86AA.AF2D7CC3@unlisted.net... >> In using the ISP Service, you may not use an IP address or client ID no

In article <NIqwb.37940$M31.838400@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis Rowell <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote: >It isn't MY pyramid scheme and last I looked pyramid schemes were illegal. In theory, they are. So is selling prescription drugs without

In article <ZGSwb.75207$86.1002612@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Curtis Rowell <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Haven't heard of the Swen A trojan either, have you? There seems to >> be quite a bit that you haven't heard of. But I bet you know a l

In article <bpugn7$j2i$3@reader2.panix.com>, <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote: >In us.legal, Curtis Rowell <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> So Mr. Breidbart is literate after all and an admitted hacker to boot. >> Hackers are a dime a doz

A client of mine (I'm her bookkeeper) asked me to research getting her a trademark. She's an artist and does custom photo shoots as well as photo greeting cards. The greeting cards are sold in retail stores and she has a name for the line, a line nam

Society for the protection of the unwary from unethical attorneys wrote, in part: > It seems to me that the Rowells can hardly . . . . Are you actually denying you are Curtis Rowell?

hitler was neither blond nor blue-eyed, but he was obsessed with @$#*ing little boys who were by creating the hitlerjugend. Of course, like hitler, his nazis are neither smart nor superior, and are in fact unemployed, unskilled, and on welfare. See, e.

Curtis Rowell wrote: > "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message > news:3FC28B9D.21644BAF@sprintmail.com... > > Curtis Rowell wrote: > > > > I suppose you will next try to argue that the SEC is partner to an > illegal > > >

On 24 November 2003, Seppo Renfors wrote: >Jon Thomas wrote: >> On 24th November 2003, "Anon." wrote: >> (snipped) >> >"Seppo Renfors" wrote... >> >> Oh.... REALLY! So pedophilia is NOT a crime where you come from, >> >> hmmmmm..... or is i

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote: >Oh come on..... a ONE MAN Team, is all you have - remove John >Wilkinson and the Pommy weather (rain) and you would get done by >Namibia! Indeed? In that case who

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:49:12 -0000, "Anon." <none@noone.com> wrote: >> If a paedophile with no history of offending commits a theft, should >> he be proscuted for being a paedophile, or a thief? >And how would you tell he's a paedophile?! The sa

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:47 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote: >Sigh..... police identifies pedophilia from the acts committed, these >acts are committed by pedophiles! These are very serious criminal acts >committed by criminals

> >> > >> If a paedophile with no history of offending commits a theft, should > >> he be proscuted for being a paedophile, or a thief? > > > >And how would you tell he's a paedophile?! > > Exactly. And why would it matter? You prosecute people

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:49:12 -0000, "Anon." <none@noone.com> wrote: > >"bigbrian" <harry8611@shotmail.com> wrote in message >news:9jm6svgk4ef142da4plf7rp0jp4ql493vd@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:47 GMT, Seppo Renfors >> <Renfors@not.polli

"bigbrian" <harry8611@shotmail.com> wrote in message news:9jm6svgk4ef142da4plf7rp0jp4ql493vd@4ax.com... > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:47 GMT, Seppo Renfors > <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote: > > > > > > >The Todal wrote: > >> > >> "Seppo Renfor

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:47 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote: > > >The Todal wrote: >> >> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message >> news:3FC293E6.A3C2BC9E@not.pollis.net.au... >> > >> > >> > Jon Thom

Thomas Anantharaman wrote: > Arthur L. Rubin wrote: > > > > > A state (as most have) CAN declare > >that marijuana sale and use does not violated state laws, AND > >possibly that it is against public policy for state law enforcement > >personnel

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message news:3FC350DE.F8678ABC@not.pollis.net.au... > > Sigh..... police identifies pedophilia from the acts committed, these > acts are committed by pedophiles! These are very serious criminal ac

The Todal wrote: > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message > news:3FC293E6.A3C2BC9E@not.pollis.net.au... > > > > > > Jon Thomas wrote: > > > > > > On 24th November 2003, "Anon." wrote: > > > (snipped) > > > > > > >"S

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:27:30 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote: >Neither is it a "crime" to be an active "criminal" according to that >"logic"!! Only if you have comprehension difficulties. > I have heard there are people who

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message news:3FC293E6.A3C2BC9E@not.pollis.net.au... > > > Jon Thomas wrote: > > > > On 24th November 2003, "Anon." wrote: > > (snipped) > > > > >"Seppo Renfors" wrote... > > > > >> Oh.... R

"MAK" <none@mail.com> on 24 Nov 2003 suggested: > If the state passes the law first, can the federal government negate > it after the fact? > Yes. --Douglas

In us.legal, Curtis Rowell <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote: > So Mr. Breidbart is literate after all and an admitted hacker to boot. > Hackers are a dime a dozen and bonofied criminals in thier own right. You don't know the meaning of the word.

"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message news:bprocl02h9@enews2.newsguy.com... > A state may not enact laws which negates what the federal government says. > E.g., The federal government says growing of marijuana is illegal. > A state comes

In message <3FC29391.3941C921@not.pollis.net.au>, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> writes >Traffic offences are not "criminal" in any case. They most certainly are in England. -- Richard Miller

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:38:19 GMT, "MAK" <none@mail.com> > >"Najena" <najena@coldmail.com> wrote in message >news:Xns943CB93039142najenahotmail@63.218.45.20... >> "MAK" <none@mail.com> wrote in >news:Xzawb.213520$mZ5.1597434@attbi_s54: >> >> > He