|
|
"Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9DjJd.15294$5R.670@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi, I'm currently living with an ex-girlfriend who is now just a roommate.
> It was my decision to end the relationship but we're too poo
|
|
|
Neil wrote:
> I worry about it, but I also think: does strict construction mean doing
> without NASA?
Yes. NASA isn't necessary anymore. At the time it was a military need.
Now the task of splace epxloration can be handed over to the private sect
|
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:18:24 -0500, "Neil" <neil_delver@yawwho.com> wrote:
>
>> The 10th Amendment was washed away, long ago.
>> Does this bother you?
>I worry about it, but I also think: does strict construction mean doing
>without NASA?
Go
|
|
|
"SactoParalegal" <KMC528@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106610638.376764.48060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> After a post appeared on various of my newsgroups stating that AOL was
> discontinuing newsgroups, I contacted AOL online tech support.
|
|
|
After a post appeared on various of my newsgroups stating that AOL was
discontinuing newsgroups, I contacted AOL online tech support. I was
reassured that this was a "hoax" and a "scam", that AOL had no plans to
discontinue newsgroup access, and that
|
|
|
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Former Justice Donald Thompson was a good freemason. wasn't he?:
Was he even a Freemason? What lodge?
|
|
|
In message <8YWId.14284$wZ2.7526@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Falky foo
<falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> writes
>Potential plaintiffs also run the risk of having the defendant slap 'em with
>an anti-SLAPP suit and get lawyer fees as well. I'd be surpri
|
|
|
"Courageous" <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in message
news:81q8v05hleidppkvu354e12gfa00hffa0d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:39:29 -0500, "Neil" <neil_delver@yawwho.com> wrote:
>
> >respecting the establishment of religion, etc? I have heard this w
|
|
|
"JB" <masonicstuff@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1106522689.54383.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote >> "Jack Wise" <jwise@hal-pc.org>
> wrote >>> Dan Simper wrote:
>>>> >> Hiding the truth again
>
> "Nom
|
|
|
"Keenan Atkinson" <gtg_four_two_five_q@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:ct1p64$pbo$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> Neil wrote:
> >have heard this was "to
> > make sure" etc., but that sounds like a flabby argument. What do you
> > think, and what
|
|
|
Falky foo wrote:
> Here's the thing though.. the point is moot.. the Const. gave the power to
> interpret itself to the Sup. Ct. Therefore, by definition, whatever 5
> of
> those folks say the constitution means, is what it means.
....and just
|
|
|
Here's the thing though.. the point is moot.. the Const. gave the power to
interpret itself to the Sup. Ct. Therefore, by definition, whatever 5 of
those folks say the constitution means, is what it means.
"Neil" <neil_delver@yawwho.com> w
|
|
|
"Roger J. P. Jones" <roger@lawyers-corrupt.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0HHZF4AE8$8BFwoq@lawyers-corrupt.demon.co.uk...
> In message <up9aztMhf$8BFwIS@marshallricebin.co.uk>, Marshall Rice
> <Marshall@marshallricebin.co.uk> writes
>>In artic
|
|
|
going back to the defamation, if the potential claimant was refer to by
first name then it is most unlikely to get passed the first requirement
of a suit in defamation.
The first thing that must be proved is the following:
That the claimant must p
|
|
|
Courts have 'historically' (ie., in the past few years) repeatedly dismissed
usenet defamation cases. First, no lawyer will take one on commission, so
they're usually pro-se prosecutions, and plaintiffs don't know how to
subpoena the appropriate entit
|
|
