[[email protected]]

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dloyd Lavies[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime. What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

Dloyd

"one useless Mark forging ahead"

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies
wrote:

On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten


"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dloyd Lavies[_2_]]

On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry, and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see
it that way. So we will see what the court decides, better prepare to
eat Crow, Mark.

Dloyd

"one useless Mark forging ahead"

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies
wrote:

On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure
......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mork]

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry, and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see
it that way. So we will see what the court decides, better prepare to
eat Crow, Mark.

Dloyd

"one useless Mark forging ahead"

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com


If you accept stolen money knowingly or not Mark, you are in posession of
stolen property.
That is a crime.
This is not unlike driving a stolen automobile that someone gives you. You
may not know it is stolen, but ignorance of the law is no excuse and you
will be charged with a crime.

Go ahead. Take the money. Please.

[Dloyd Lavies[_2_]]

On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd



Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court. I never said anyone was guilty of
anything, but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you, it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's. Common sense does come in to play. I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

Dloyd

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:31:57 -0500, "Mork" gayMark@chassell wrote:



"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry, and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see
it that way. So we will see what the court decides, better prepare to
eat Crow, Mark.

Dloyd

"one useless Mark forging ahead"

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com


If you accept stolen money knowingly or not Mark, you are in posession of
stolen property.
That is a crime.
This is not unlike driving a stolen automobile that someone gives you.

well had out that issue sometime ago here in Michigan a person was
sold a stolen cars wih keys the charge against the vechile driver was
not even alowed to go to trail. he, the drive,r did have to surrender
the car of course a count of Frad was added to the list against the
man who stole it in the first place


In this case howver the issue is clearer the money would be stolen in
the first it would be freely given by it owner. posscession of
something given you by its rightfull owner is NOT ilegal

You
may not know it is stolen, but ignorance of the law is no excuse and you
will be charged with a crime.

perhaps charged yes I agree bt will the charge be allowed to come to
trail?


Go ahead. Take the money. Please.

sounds like you are threatening to do this

go for it


"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:56:36 -0700, Dloyd Lavies
wrote:

On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd



Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court.

sure you are
I never said anyone was guilty of
anything,


sure you did

but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you,........

ana another ruling you have ruled a person may not lawfully recieve
money from strangers


....... it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's.

you are claiming in this particular case that it is crime for the
recieving to who had made interapeals for fincail aid in crisis to
assume that the money that arived in her mailbox was not upposed to be
there

Common sense does come in to play.

common sense and th e aw rarely meet anymore Dloyd if you had REAL
knowledge youd know that

I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

again you porve you have little knowledge fo real LE Dloyd



I have indulged you I don't supose you would Indulge ME by answering
why you seem to have Delusion I want to be "normal" ? that has NEVER
(except for a monets of weakness) been an ambition of mine.

Aspire to far more than that, and I have to guts to go for it

If I end up looking like Don Quoxte (soory that may be mispelled)from
tiem to time that is the price of aspiring to greatess

when I die dloyd it will be after having lived my life in something
otrher than an endless fear of dying, that at leats will give
something in comon with great Men. Like Ceaser Alexander Napeolen
Hitler, Satlin Moes and the young rabbi from Judea

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dloyd Lavies[_2_]]

On Jun 20, 8:01?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:56:36 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court.

sure you are

Where?

I never said anyone was guilty of
anything,

sure you did

Where?

but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you,........

ana another ruling you have ruled a person may not lawfully recieve
money from strangers

I have not ruled, but the law states that it is illegal to receive
funds from an illegal enterprise, i.e. fraud.

....... it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's.

you are claiming in this particular case that it is crime for the
recieving to who had made interapeals for fincail aid in crisis to
assume that the money that arived in her mailbox was not upposed to be
there

No, I claimed that in this particular case (based upon the information
posted by indivduals who were defrauded, that the individual in
question offered for sale amateur gear, and once payment was made, the
gear was never mailed. Your the one that came up with the bogus ad
defense.

Common sense does come in to play.

common sense and th e aw rarely meet anymore Dloyd if you had REAL
knowledge youd know that

I actually have something you don't have, which is real knowledge of
the Law. FYI I have worked directly with the United States District
Court system for well over 25 years, which means that I know a hell of
a lot more than you about the Law.

I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

again you porve you have little knowledge fo real LE Dloyd

No, you prove that you don't know squat because DA's aren't LE, Mark.
DA's work with LE to adjudicate the law and Judge's aren't LE either,
Judges are the finder of fact.


I have indulged you I don't supose you would Indulge ME by answering
why you seem to have Delusion I want to be "normal" ? that has NEVER
(except for a monets of weakness) been an ambition of mine.

I have no delusions and never said that I thought you wanted to be
normal. Stop making **** upt again. At least me and you can agree on
one thing, that you are not normal, and by your own rationale your are
not sane either.

Aspire to far more than that, and I have to guts to go for it

Go for what? I think you daydream too much.

If I end up looking like Don Quoxte (soory that may be mispelled)from
tiem to time that is the price of aspiring to greatess
when I die dloyd it will be after having lived my life in something
otrher than an endless fear of dying, that at leats will give
something in comon with great Men. Like Ceaser Alexander Napeolen
Hitler, Satlin Moes and the young rabbi from Judea

I don't know anyone who lives in endless fear of dying. How crazy is
that, I think you've read too many bedtime stories and other
extrapolations from the truth. Half of the men you mentioned were
nothing more than deranged tyrants or cowards, and in the end, these
people didn't stand in the face greatness on their deeds, but instead
coward down like the sniviling scumbags they were, and died cowardly
meager deaths.

If your looking for greatness, you better get started, because most of
the individuals you mentioned were well on the paths to their destiny
of "greatness" before age 40.

Dloyd

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com

"one useless Mark forging ahead"