|
|
In article <4276BF9D.5000505@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ken thinks upside down. They ruled that they didn't have jurisdiction
> > because Ken's purported challenge to the constitutionality of the Bar
> > regulations was really
|
|
|
Begin copy
**************************
Ken Smith May 1, 8:22 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.privacy, us.legal, co.politics, misc.legal,
alt.fan.bob-larson
From: Ken Smith <for...@it.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 12
|
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:15:39 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>>In article <4276813A.3040601@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>>dhm@best.com wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 2 May 2005, Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> I've already gi
|
|
|
In article <4276B9D1.4030307@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> Jon Beaver wrote:
> >
> > You guys had better knock it off. God help you if you don't know what
> > I mean.
>
> Gentlemen, I don't know about you, but this sounds like
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070706030304090105080707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Larry wrote:
> In article <42768D68.9070308@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.
|
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 11:09:24 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
> <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>>>dhm@best.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is a matter of concern.
>>>
>>> My DMV records are cleaner than a Colorado Supreme
|
|
|
In article <83dd71hi4cl9bmhk1e39s4apeg5gcuk9uc@4ax.com>,
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:15:39 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
> >
> >Then again, assuming that the Tenth Circuit really did cite a fact that
> >proves yo
|
|
|
In article <42768D68.9070308@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <427687AC.7040802@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> >>Larry wrote:
> >>>
> >>>It's not a defense to speeding to say "I was doing it, and
|
|
|
|
|
|
In uk.legal Falky foo <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
> and what law would one be breaking? that's the question. Maybe there's a
> USC section on it? "Encouraging" the enemy perhaps? Anybody know of
> anything like that?
Conspiracy to murder
|
|
|
Larry wrote:
> In article <4276813A.3040601@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> 3. It pisses off Larry and the Beav. :)
> Doesn't piss me off at all. It does make me wonder why you discuss your
> situation here, and refu
|
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:56:21 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:38:34 GMT, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:15:16 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>>>>On S
|
|
|
On 1 May 2005 16:13:52 -0700, "solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote
>
>" If one can prove the *presence* of bad cause, wouldn't it also prove
>the *absence* of good cause? This is an honest question."
>
>
>And accordingly, it
|
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:56:21 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:38:34 GMT, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:15:16 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 May 2005
|
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:36:49 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:33:18 GMT, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 May 2005 11:08:08 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 May 2005
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020600060204090806050005
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Larry wrote:
> In article <4276813A.3040601@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.
|
|
|
Larry wrote:
> In article <427687AC.7040802@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>>In article <4274DB4A.5070103@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's logical, within reasonably specified limits. Once the eleme
|
|
|
Larry wrote:
> In article <42768127.4020403@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Hell, Jon, you won't even believe THE TENTH CIRCUIT when they admit a
>>fact which proves my case [see attached]. Let me simply say that *YOU*
>>are not
|
|
|
In article <4276813A.3040601@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> dhm@best.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 May 2005, Ken Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I've already given Jon what he asked for -- the Bar's *stated*
> >> reasons for why they demanded the
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:01:41 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>In article <cuid71pjdpefo7skoltcoa9qc4tl342emf@4ax.com>,
> Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:55:49 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4276B
|
|
|
In article <42768127.4020403@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
> Hell, Jon, you won't even believe THE TENTH CIRCUIT when they admit a
> fact which proves my case [see attached]. Let me simply say that *YOU*
> are not credible.
Yet
|
|
|
In article <427687AC.7040802@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <4274DB4A.5070103@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's logical, within reasonably specified limits. Once the elements
> >>o
|
|
|
Larry wrote:
> In article <4274DB4A.5070103@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> It's logical, within reasonably specified limits. Once the elements
>>of a retaliation claim are made, the official must defend his conduct,
>>and in the
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000003030003060602030701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
dhm@best.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2005, Ken Smith wrote:
>
>> I've a
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070102060207050909090402
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jon Beaver wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 05:07:07 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it
|
|
|
In article <4274DB4A.5070103@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
> It's logical, within reasonably specified limits. Once the elements
> of a retaliation claim are made, the official must defend his conduct,
> and in the typical traffic
|
|
|
In article <ke39711cb35nhji9734rgdrdg85m2o4qgh@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 12:40:28 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
> >Larry wrote:
> >> In article <3it771lb8883bpsurutjb3aefkuor6r0k5@4ax.com>,
|
|
|
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Ken Smith wrote:
> I've already given Jon what he asked for -- the Bar's *stated* reasons for
> why they demanded the exam. Dan, Jon knows *perfectly well* that if you are
> going to ask for something from a court in a mot
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:55:49 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>In article <4276B9D1.4030307@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Jon Beaver wrote:
>> >
>> > You guys had better knock it off. God help you if you don't know what
>> > I me
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:05:18 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>In article <4276C075.40308@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Jon Beaver wrote:
>> > On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:30:07 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>> >>Jon Beaver wrote:
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:22:24 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>Larry wrote:
>> In article <427687AC.7040802@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>In article <4274DB4A.5070103@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:57:56 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>Larry wrote:
>> In article <4274DB4A.5070103@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's logical, within reasonably specified limits. Once the elements
>>>of a retal
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:21:39 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>In article <ke39711cb35nhji9734rgdrdg85m2o4qgh@4ax.com>,
> Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 12:40:28 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Larry w
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:15:39 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote:
>In article <4276813A.3040601@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> dhm@best.com wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2 May 2005, Ken Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've already given Jon what he ask
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:30:07 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>Jon Beaver wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 05:07:07 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>>dhm@best.com wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Jon Beaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And doing a fin
|
|
|
On Mon, 2 May 2005 11:09:24 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
>> dhm@best.com wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a matter of concern.
>>
>> My DMV records are cleaner than a Colorado Supreme Court justice's
>> [I ac
|
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 12:59:57 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
> > dhm@best.com wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a matter of concern.
> >
> > My DMV records are cleaner than a Colorado Supreme Court
> > justice's [I actually
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> dhm@best.com wrote:
> >
> > This is a matter of concern.
>
> My DMV records are cleaner than a Colorado Supreme Court justice's
> [I actually ran theirs, to get their addresses], and as it is a
> government record, it is not li
|
|
|
On Mon, 2 May 2005 01:19:25 -0400, bicinc@webtv.net (Ira Burke) wrote:
>what is the law pertaining to commercial unregistered vehials causing
>accidents on public roads
50 different states=50 different answers.
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 05:07:07 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>dhm@best.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Jon Beaver wrote:
>>>
>>> And doing a fine job of it. I understand completely. You are being
>>> foolish to complain that anything I h
|
|
|
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060607050907090208050001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
dhm@best.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Jon Beaver wrote:
>>
>> And do
|
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
> On 1 May 2005 16:13:52 -0700, "solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
>>Kent Wills wrote
>>
>>" If one can prove the *presence* of bad cause, wouldn't it also prove
>>the *absence* of good cause? This is an honest question."
>>
|
|
|
In uk.legal IanAl <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Newsgroups: misc.legal,us.legal,uk.leg
> Hasn't it occurred to anyone replying to this thread that the question
> of legality is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction concerned?
Obviously not.
Was
|
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Jon Beaver wrote:
>
> And doing a fine job of it. I understand completely. You are being
> foolish to complain that anything I have said impugns his veracity.
> It's just that in the real world, we don't operate on someone's
|
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:15:16 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:19:08 GMT, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> Ken hasn't whined, as much as you wish he had. He's presented
>>valid arguments and, horror o
|
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 11:08:08 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:22:49 GMT, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:53:02 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
>
>>>IF the SOLE legal bas
|
|
|
what is the law pertaining to commercial unregistered vehials causing
accidents on public roads
|
|
|
On 1 May 2005 15:46:31 -0700, "solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote
>
>>"On Usenet, what else is there? It's not like the 10th circuit lurks
>on misc.legal and is going to say, "Whoops. We screwed up." "
>
>Heck, it seems li
|
|
