Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?
If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

You think so badly!

Uhh, Phil,

Uhh?

how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.

Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
accusation.

Ah, BB, in our common law based jurisprudence we do not have
investigating/investigative judges. They exist and function in
continental jurisprudence in judicial systems derived from Roman law.
Thus, your parrot cries of investigating judges and dismissals is really
nothing more than a stale cracker for the parrot.

Judges in our system conduct trials/hearings. Do you know what findings,
if any, the judge made as to the subject matter of the order?


Before you write more **** about other people Murray, say if you understand
what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
and real investigation of accusations.

Wrong. It is you who haven't a clue as to the law and the legal system.


Maybe you should try reading

Maybe you should not offer advice, since you have no demonstrated ability to
even understand what others say, and even then, are shy to come up to any
mark of independent and dissinterested assessment.

You are as shot as Laugherty!

Phil Innes




somebody who writes straightforwardly.
How about, oh, Henry Miller?

I think you might find Death On The installment Plan a good read, also.


Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
accusations"?

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.
'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.
Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
Lawyer, why just generally be in command?

But why not humor the fool?

OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
they glean into consideration.

Are you happy now?

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
standards.

Phil Innes