us.legal

>> This seems like circular reasoning. You start by asking if a trademark >> is >>useful in a non-business setting. Then you don't answer that question but >>instead set up an argument that B and C don't like each other and C sues >>using the a

Kent Wills wrote: > On Sat, 07 May 2005 03:17:47 GMT, Larry <larry@x.com> wrote: > > > In article <s93o71pbf2get51uslo9bhbrghjctcehll@4ax.com>, > > Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 06 May 2005 15:03:47 -0700, "Theodore A. Kal

Kent Wills wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005 22:40:07 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" > <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: > > > > You could have given proper credit to the original author of > > > the text you copied and pasted. > > > > The author? LOL! > > > > Wh

forevernitefan wrote: > Robots are Jewish? > > So, um is their software kosher? Give it a taste and let us know, you shiksa slut.

ent Wills wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2005 22:26:00 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" > <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: > > > Kent Wills wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:26:34 -0600, " \"- Prof Jonez©\"" wrote: > > > > Kent Wills wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 3 May 20

On Fri, 06 May 2005 15:03:47 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> Jon Beaver wrote: > >>> You are truly strange. Schlagenhauf deals with the question of whether a >>> mere nominal DEFENDANT, who has

On Fri, 06 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >On 6 May 2005 11:42:17 -0700, adriangilbarco@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >>>> That was the gist of the reason cited by the Bar. >>> >>> >>>No it wasn't. It was Ken's characterizat

On 6 May 2005 11:42:17 -0700, adriangilbarco@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> That was the gist of the reason cited by the Bar. >> >> >>No it wasn't. It was Ken's characterization of an except of a "gist." > >>We're not talking about the merits of Ken's c

On Thu, 5 May 2005 22:26:00 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: >Kent Wills wrote: >> On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:26:34 -0600, " \"- Prof Jonez©\"" wrote: >> > Kent Wills wrote: >> > > On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:40:22 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jone

On Thu, 5 May 2005 22:45:41 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: >Cirque wrote: >> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >> >> > Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round ... >> >> You might try aiming for something more normal than

On 6 May 2005 08:18:54 -0700, "forevernitefan" <fvrnite@yahoo.com> wrote: >What IS this about me getting on a date with ANY of you guys? IS that >why Jonez is so interested in me, he thinks his retorts are foreplay? It's a possibility. > >Oh

Kent Wills wrote: > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >> Kent Wills wrote: >>> Quick question, Ted: Do ALL applicants have to undergo an IME before >>> getting admitted to the Bar? A yes or no will do. >> No. > Then the whole of your argument is s

On Fri, 6 May 2005 adriangilbarco@yahoo.com wrote: > A "bar brief". Hmmm. That might make some interesting reading. > Wouldn't that already be public record or something? > > Jon and I are a thousand miles away from Denver, and Larry is two

> This seems like circular reasoning. You start by asking if a trademark is >useful in a non-business setting. Then you don't answer that question but >instead set up an argument that B and C don't like each other and C sues >using the argument th

Beep wrote: > I'm really tired tonight and not feeling very well; it would sure help > in finding them if there are any here. Still whining. > Even flashing LEDs would be ok. What planet you on? I have been posting high level astrology for 9

http://www.smbtech.com/ed/ http://www.nocem.org/ http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://www.smbtech.com/ed/ @@BEGIN NCM HEADERS Version: 0.9 Issuer: wollmannizer@spam.free Type: spew

Kent Wills wrote: > Quick question, Ted: Do ALL applicants have to undergo an IME before > getting admitted to the Bar? A yes or no will do. No. But those who are apparently as stark, raving bonkers as Ken Smith appears to be certainly do. --

Larry wrote: > In article <427ACC6D.8020002@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >> So, that's the appellate matter you were working on.... :) Wouldn't >>an outfit as large as NYC's DA office have its own appellate division? > > Actuall

forevernitefan wrote: > it's called sodomy, Jonez and gay males do it. Guess that means you are > a gay male Jonez. > > I don't see the attraction in a dick up the ass. One would hope not!!!

forevernitefan wrote: > What IS this about me getting on a date with ANY of you guys? IS that > why Jonez is so interested in me, he thinks his retorts are foreplay? Ayup. > Oh brother. Sorry boys, I go for intelligence and maturity, THEN comes

forevernitefan wrote: > Huh? BOTH of you want to hit on me? No thanks.

forevernitefan wrote: > Like I said, I agree with you on that about Jonez. Heor she is > pathetic, complaining about how certain people deserve to die when he > or she ( or whatever Jonez actually is) BENEFITS from the efforts of > thise he/she/it de

dhm@best.com wrote: > adriangilbarco@yahoo.com wrote: >> A "bar brief". Hmmm. That might make some interesting reading. Wouldn't >> that already be public record or something? > Jon and I are a thousand miles away from Denver, and Larry is two

Ken Smith wrote: > Jon Beaver wrote: >> You are truly strange. Schlagenhauf deals with the question of whether a >> mere nominal DEFENDANT, who has not personally placed his physical or >> mental condition in controversy can be required to underg

Ken Smith wrote: > Jon Beaver wrote: >> Kent Wills wrote: >>> Jon Beaver wrote: >>>> IF the SOLE legal basis for the Bar demanding that you submit to a >>>> mental examination was that they disagreed with your views on Bob >>>> Larson, you have

Gordon, This seems like circular reasoning. You start by asking if a trademark is useful in a non-business setting. Then you don't answer that question but instead set up an argument that B and C don't like each other and C sues using the argu

>> That was the gist of the reason cited by the Bar. > > >No it wasn't. It was Ken's characterization of an except of a "gist." >We're not talking about the merits of Ken's case. That's over. He >lost. What we are talking about is the lawfuln

Re: Why isn't CNN covering the Franklin arrest in association with the AIPAC espionage scandal at the Pentagon? http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/05/larry-franklin-aipac-case-memo-to.html

it's called sodomy, Jonez and gay males do it. Guess that means you are a gay male Jonez. I don't see the attraction in a dick up the ass. Moe Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan " A vampire cop? REALLY?"

What IS this about me getting on a date with ANY of you guys? IS that why Jonez is so interested in me, he thinks his retorts are foreplay? Oh brother. Sorry boys, I go for intelligence and maturity, THEN comes the sexy body and good looks. Dick is

Robots are Jewish? So, um is their software kosher? Moe Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan " A vampire cop? REALLY?"

Huh? BOTH of you want to hit on me? I wouldn't consider that flattering....... Sorry this female isn't for grabs. Try your blow up dolls, guys. Moe Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan " A vampire cop? REALLY?"

Jealous Jonez? Sheesh, I wouldn't want to break up the love fest between you and Sammie :-D But, much as i'd hate to admit it, Sammie does have a point about your asinine comments about the soliders and the war. You don't have one frigging idea what

Like I said, I agree with you on that about Jonez. Heor she is pathetic, complaining about how certain people deserve to die when he or she ( or whatever Jonez actually is) BENEFITS from the efforts of thise he/she/it derides. I am not particularly

On 5 May 2005 12:08:40 -0700, charleswehner@hotmail.com, in message ID <1115320120.781685.193680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, in the newsgroup uk.legal wrote: > >international_mens_organisation@internationalmensorganisation.cjb.net >wrote: >> >

"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > Cirque wrote: > >> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >> >>>Cirque wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round ... >>>> >>>>You might try aiming for someth

"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > Cirque wrote: > >> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >> >> >>>Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round ... >> >>You might try aiming for something more normal than their poop chute. > > > God wouldn't have put the b

"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > Cirque wrote: > >> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >> >>> The >>>Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained (SABCE) reminds >>>us that the Bible is a book without error. >> >>Yawn, the manual for my chainsaw has "errors

"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > The > Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained (SABCE) reminds us that the > Bible is a book without error. Yawn, the manual for my chainsaw has "errors" - so? Man writes, man makes mistakes. Next.

"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round ... You might try aiming for something more normal than their poop chute.

In article <427ACC6D.8020002@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > > So, that's the appellate matter you were working on.... :) Wouldn't > an outfit as large as NYC's DA office have its own appellate division? Actually, I work on quite a

> You seem to believe that "trademarking" is a business thing but that is >not the case anyone may apply for a trademark. Is a trademark *USEFUL* to someone who cannot or will not engage in business? Consider two people: B wants his own dom

>Yeah, but Ford and Microsoft are businesses, not churches. I try to >keep a light (and sometimes snide) tone, but my question is serious. >If there really is a God - and only one, then the followers of that >God should have the right to refer to

Larry wrote: > In article <427A5F68.6010208@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >> I'm more interested in the Saudi Gazette article, largely because at >>least one lawyer is in trouble -- by definition. > > How do you figure that, Kenny

In article <427A5F68.6010208@it.com>, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > > I'm more interested in the Saudi Gazette article, largely because at > least one lawyer is in trouble -- by definition. How do you figure that, Kenny? Maybe the defen