Main
Date: 29 May 2007 14:35:12
From:
Subject: John Hillery puts the jackass Brian P Lafferty, ESQ in his place
Brian Lafferty, ESQ:

"Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove
the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as
proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon
request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall
provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the
court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general
nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

I would respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Bachler, that you leave such
questions of standing and prior acts to those who have studied and
practiced law. To be blunt, as I sadly feel I must be given your
series of recent posts, you lack the legal education and background to
appreciate how inane some of your posts regarding law and justice have
become."

H. Vaughn:

"What I find objectionable about the "legal threats" ISN'T that they
are an assertion of the individual's rights.

What I find objectionable is that they are used to intimidate and
control the other party. We all know that even frivolous lawsuits can
cost thousands of dollars. Even if we feel that our positions are
correct, many of us would be intimidated if another person threatened
to sue us. IMHO, such comments don't belong in polite conversation.
While they may be "legal" -- I see such a comment from a lawyer as no
more than a threat from a school yard bully that he'll "beat you up".

If somebody's really just standing up for his rights, then he can
argue that point WITHOUT the threat. For example, tell another poster
that they aren't being fair, have made false accusations, or owe you
an appology, but don't threaten to sue them for libel."

John Hillery:

"I think most people would consider lack of legal knowledge less
reprehensible than abuse of one's legal education and status for
purposes of threats and intimidation. Speaking purely hypothetically,
of course."





 
Date: 29 May 2007 16:44:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: John Hillery puts the jackass Brian P Lafferty, ESQ in his place
On 29 May, 19:20, Ambassador <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 29, 4:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brian Lafferty, ESQ:
>
> > "Other crimes, wrongs, or acts
>
> > Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove
> > the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
> > therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as
> > proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
> > identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon
> > request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall
> > provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the
> > court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general
> > nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
>
> > I would respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Bachler, that you leave such
> > questions of standing and prior acts to those who have studied and
> > practiced law. To be blunt, as I sadly feel I must be given your
> > series of recent posts, you lack the legal education and background to
> > appreciate how inane some of your posts regarding law and justice have
> > become."
>
> > H. Vaughn:
>
> > "What I find objectionable about the "legal threats" ISN'T that they
> > are an assertion of the individual's rights.
>
> > What I find objectionable is that they are used to intimidate and
> > control the other party. We all know that even frivolous lawsuits can
> > cost thousands of dollars. Even if we feel that our positions are
> > correct, many of us would be intimidated if another person threatened
> > to sue us. IMHO, such comments don't belong in polite conversation.
> > While they may be "legal" -- I see such a comment from a lawyer as no
> > more than a threat from a school yard bully that he'll "beat you up".
>
> > If somebody's really just standing up for his rights, then he can
> > argue that point WITHOUT the threat. For example, tell another poster
> > that they aren't being fair, have made false accusations, or owe you
> > an appology, but don't threaten to sue them for libel."
>
> > John Hillery:
>
> > "I think most people would consider lack of legal knowledge less
> > reprehensible than abuse of one's legal education and status for
> > purposes of threats and intimidation. Speaking purely hypothetically,
> > of course."
>
> I think that legal education has little place on the usenet.
> Ilyumzhiov issues death threats over the usenet. What are you going to
> do, sue FIDE?
>
> cus Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The problem with Brian P Lafferty, ESQ is his wife blows everybody but
him. So he's angry at the world and he's now taking it out of Terry
Winchester and John Hillery. What a fucking scumbag. Anyone who uses
him for legal services is probably retarded.



 
Date: 29 May 2007 16:20:18
From: Ambassador
Subject: Re: John Hillery puts the jackass Brian P Lafferty, ESQ in his place
On May 29, 4:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Brian Lafferty, ESQ:
>
> "Other crimes, wrongs, or acts
>
> Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove
> the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
> therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as
> proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
> identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon
> request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall
> provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the
> court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general
> nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
>
> I would respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Bachler, that you leave such
> questions of standing and prior acts to those who have studied and
> practiced law. To be blunt, as I sadly feel I must be given your
> series of recent posts, you lack the legal education and background to
> appreciate how inane some of your posts regarding law and justice have
> become."
>
> H. Vaughn:
>
> "What I find objectionable about the "legal threats" ISN'T that they
> are an assertion of the individual's rights.
>
> What I find objectionable is that they are used to intimidate and
> control the other party. We all know that even frivolous lawsuits can
> cost thousands of dollars. Even if we feel that our positions are
> correct, many of us would be intimidated if another person threatened
> to sue us. IMHO, such comments don't belong in polite conversation.
> While they may be "legal" -- I see such a comment from a lawyer as no
> more than a threat from a school yard bully that he'll "beat you up".
>
> If somebody's really just standing up for his rights, then he can
> argue that point WITHOUT the threat. For example, tell another poster
> that they aren't being fair, have made false accusations, or owe you
> an appology, but don't threaten to sue them for libel."
>
> John Hillery:
>
> "I think most people would consider lack of legal knowledge less
> reprehensible than abuse of one's legal education and status for
> purposes of threats and intimidation. Speaking purely hypothetically,
> of course."

I think that legal education has little place on the usenet.
Ilyumzhiov issues death threats over the usenet. What are you going to
do, sue FIDE?

cus Roberts



  
Date: 01 Jun 2007 00:28:20
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: John Hillery puts the jackass Brian P Lafferty, ESQ in his place

"Ambassador" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On May 29, 4:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I think

That's debatable.

> that legal education has little place on the usenet.
> Ilyumzhiov issues death threats over the usenet. What are you going to
> do, sue FIDE?
>
> cus Roberts
>

So how is your lawsuit against FIDE going, cbob?