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