|
|
In article <slrnc1g1lm.ana.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>Yes that's correct. And it would be the right answer 99% of the
>time. Your answer would be incorrect 100% of the time. The defendant
>would
|
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:45 -0800, Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Let's be real (changing the subject might also be good, as
> I don't want to be specific to John Edwards)....
Fine with me.
> In most medical malpracti
|
|
|
On 28 Jan 2004 09:05:56 -0800, Christopher Green <cj.green@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> Lady Veteran <see.msg@4.email.addy.com> wrote in message news:<0HGEZ3PT38014.5278009259@Gilgamesh-Frog.org>...
>> I amplanning to sue an indididual who has cyberstal
|
|
|
Hi All,
I came across this web site. Its a EXCELLENT website for use for federal
law and rights. It has the statutes and researchable case law Including
Supreme Court decisions.
I thought I would pass it along as its been very useful to me.
h
|
|
|
"Rusty Shackleford" <mshaefner@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:<40180e3a$0$4660$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>...
> Does anyone know the legal definition of "Prophylactic Restrictions" as it
> pertains to California workman's comp? I have thes
|
|
|
Thanks Isaac,
Well yes Iam actually ( suprised ) considering the complexity of the
material and the fact that Iam not a attorney. I think also that the law
allows the request for a attorney in ' extraordinary ' circumstanced -
whatever that mean
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 28 Jan 2004 12:40:47 +0100, Lady Veteran
<see.msg@4.email.addy.com> wrote:
Now this one you may crospost to hell....I didn't post it but you did
me a favor. Sometimes you DO have a use.
LV
Re
|
|
|
I amplanning to sue an indididual who has cyberstalked me and sue for
defamation of character as well. I need to raise funds to pay the lawyer. I
have several people interested in being co-plaintiffs but we are all
without cash reserves. We need to rai
|
|
|
On 28 Jan 2004 12:40:47 +0100, Lady Veteran <see.msg@4.email.addy.com>
wrote:
>I amplanning to sue an indididual who has cyberstalked me and sue for
>defamation of character as well. I need to raise funds to pay the lawyer. I
>have several people in
|
|
|
Does anyone know the legal definition of "Prophylactic Restrictions" as it
pertains to California workman's comp? I have these restrictions and have
been working for 1 year and now the company I work for is saying I am a
liability because of these res
|
|
|
Lady Veteran <see.msg@4.email.addy.com> wrote in message news:<0HGEZ3PT38014.5278009259@Gilgamesh-Frog.org>...
> I amplanning to sue an indididual who has cyberstalked me and sue for
> defamation of character as well. I need to raise funds to pay the la
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:30:22 -0600, M <wowsers@odsy.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a pending 1983 ( Civil Rights Suit ). Does anyone know of a way
> to get good reliable help on this since the judge denied my request to have
> a attorney appoin
|
|
|
****** This looks like important forensic psychology news. ******
Now anyone can take the mmpi-2 and score it for themselves, see
http://cyberper.cnc.net/MMPI2news.htm
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:15:02 -0800, Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Not exactly. Well -- I don't think so, anyway. They are
> (normally*) TOLD to determine what proportion of the plaintiff's
> damage was caused by the defen
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:30:35 -0800, Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>
> In some cases of "junk science", we are. Silicone implants come to mind.
We are pretty sure it's junk now. I don't believe there was always a
agreement t
|
|
