On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

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.

IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument, that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
"dismissal" is proper in this instance.

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.

Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?

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

Chess One wrote:


If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

PI

I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:aQQLj.29$DD2.6@trndny04...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may
not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
to Brian
Lafferty.
"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!

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!

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?
I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that)

Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?

Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You said
a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you (Bowel Boy,
aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that proceeding.

Well, that merely defines you as an obnoxious abusenik, who refuses to
answer direct questions put to him about his knowledge since he can't figure
out what a charge being 'thrown out' means. )) Were you really a
judge or a line-judge? Its hard to tell.

Instead you are the sort of person who would require someone to suffer abuse
even to answer your evasions. Can the cesation of your judgeship be at all
related to your behavior?

Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT the
charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.





R




O






F







L





!





!






He neither says he knows of it, and he has no declared intention of finding
out for himself, even after he is informed of it, despite some mysterious
connection of his own with the guardian ad litem!

Such thundering logic as Lafferty offers us is better off in his own New
Hampshire thunder box, than exhibited in public to his, and to other
person's disparagement.

Phil Innes





the facts told by the guardian ad litem.

Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?

Now, I've noted this before. You apparently either did not comprehend or
forgot. I was told about the guardian ad litem and the kids by the kid's
father, Mr. Shutzman. Got that? .

Now, please go play sandbox journalist with your friends the Trolgars.

[remainder snipped]

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:aQQLj.29$DD2.6@trndny04...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may
not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
to Brian
Lafferty.
"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!

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!

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?
I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that)
Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?
Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You said
a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you (Bowel Boy,
aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that proceeding.

Well, that merely defines you as an obnoxious abusenik, who refuses to
answer direct questions put to him about his knowledge since he can't figure
out what a charge being 'thrown out' means. )) Were you really a
judge or a line-judge? Its hard to tell.

Instead you are the sort of person who would require someone to suffer abuse
even to answer your evasions. Can the cesation of your judgeship be at all
related to your behavior?

Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT the
charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."

Brian Lafferty wrote:

Phil Innes AKA Chess One wrote:

If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

As near as I can figure, the translation is:



Product Liability Suit

In The United States District Court, Southwestern District,
Tempe, Arizona Case No. B19293, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding

Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff vs. Acme Company, Defendant

Opening statement of Mr. Harold Schoff, attorney for
Mr. Coyote:

My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and
contiguous states, does hearby bring suit for damages
against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail
distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in
Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and
territory. Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal
injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering
caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross
negligence of said company, under Title 15 of the United
States Code Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a),
relating to product liability.

Mr. Coyote states that on eighty-five separate occasions, he
has purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter,
"Defendant"), through that company's mail order department,
certain products which did cause him bodily injury due to
defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labelling.
Sales slips made out to Mr. Coyote as proof of purchase are
at present in the possession of the Court, marked Exhibit A.
Such injuries sustained by Mr. Coyote have temporarily
restricted his ability to make a living in the profession of
predator. Mr. Coyote is self-employed and thus not eligible
for Workmen's Compensation.

Mr. Coyote states that on December 13th, he received of
Defendant via parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled. The
intention of Mr. Coyote was to use the Rocket sled to aid
him in pursuit of his prey. Upon receipt of the Rocket Sled,
Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and
sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition.
As Mr. Coyote gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled
accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to
stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of fifteen feet.
Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote's body shot forward
with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and
neck and placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled.
Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a
diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon
brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey. At that moment, the
animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right. Mr.
Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was
unable to, due to poor design and engineering on the Rocket
Sled and a faulty or nonexistent steering system. Shortly
thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled led it
and Mr. Coyote into collision with the side of a mesa.

Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit
B), prepared by Dr. Ernst Grosscup, M.D., D.O., details the
multiple fractures, contusions, and tissue damage suffered
by Mr. Coyote as a result of this collision. Repair of the
injuries required a full bandage around the head (excluding
the ears), a neck brace, and full or partial casts on all
four legs. Hampered by these injuries, Mr. Coyote was
nevertheless obliged to support himself. With this in mind,
he purchased of Defendant as an aid to mobility one pair of
Acme Rocket Skates. When he attempted to use this product,
however, he became involved in an accident remarkably
similar to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again,
Defendant sold over the counter, without caveat, a product
which attached powerful jet engines (in this case, two) to
inadequate vehicles, with little or no provision for
passenger safety.

Encumbered by his heavy casts, Mr. Coyote lost control of
the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on, and collided
with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole in
the shape of his full silhouette.

Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in
this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives
purchased of Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" Firecracker,
the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing,
see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalog and attached
deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is
safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of
Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner.

To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and
personal effort, Mr. Coyote constructed around the outer rim
of a butte a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte
and spiralling downward around it to some few feet above a
black X painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed
in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by
Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of
detonation indicated by the X. Mr. Coyote placed a generous
pile of birdseed directly on the X, and then, carrying the
spherical Acme Bomb (Catalog #78) climbed to the top of the
butte. Mr. Coyote's prey, seeing the birdseed, approached,
and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant,
the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to
detonate. In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote's careful
preparations to naught, the premature detonation of
Defendant's product resulted in the following disfigurements
to Mr. Coyote:

1.Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.

2.Sooty discoloration.

3.Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to
dangle in the aftershock with a creaking noise.

4.Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking,
frazzling, and ashy disintegration.

5.Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid
charring.

We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes. The remains of
a pair of these purchased by Mr. Coyote on June 23rd are
Plaintiff's Exhibit D. Selected fragments have been shipped
to the metallurgical laboratories of the University of
California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to date, no
explanation has been found for this product's sudden and
extreme malfunction.

As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity
itself: two wood-and- metal sandals, each attached to
milled-steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed
in a tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a
lanyard release. Mr. Coyote believed that this product would
enable him to pounce upon his prey in the initial moments of
the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.

To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Mr.
Coyote affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large
boulder. Adjacent to the boulder was a path which Mr.
Coyote's prey was known to frequent. Mr. Coyote put his hind
feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched in
readiness, his right forepaw holding firmly to the lanyard
release. Within a short time, Mr. Coyote's prey did indeed
appear on the path coming toward him.

Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Mr. Coyote, well within
range of the springs at full extension. Mr. Coyote gauged
the distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard
release. At this point, Defendant's product should have
thrust Mr. Coyote forward and away from the boulder.
Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme Spring-Powered
Shoes thrust the boulder away from Mr. Coyote.

As the intended prey looked on unharmed, Mr. Coyote hung
suspended in the air. Then the twin springs recoiled,
bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent feet-first collision with
the boulder, the full weight of his head and forequarters
falling upon his lower extremities. The force of this impact
then caused the springs to rebound, whereupon Mr. Coyote was
thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed. The
boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, had
begun to bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling
of the springs adding to its velocity. At each bounce, Mr.
Coyote came into contact with the boulder, or the boulder
came into contact with Mr. Coyote, or both came into contact
with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process
continued for some time.

The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical
damage to Mr. Coyote, viz, flattening of the cranium,
sideways displacement of the tongue, reduction of length of
legs and upper body, and compression of vertebrae from base
of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a vertical axis
produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Mr.
Coyote's body tissues, a rare and painful condition which
caused Mr. Coyote to expand upward and contract downward
alternately as he walked, and to emit an offkey,
accordion-like wheezing with every step. The distracting and
embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major
impediment to Mr. Coyote's pursuit of a normal social life.

As the court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual
monopoly of manufacture and sale of goods required by Mr.
Coyote's work. It is our contention that Defendant has used
its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of
such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites,
Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long
rubber bands. Much as he has come to mistrust Defendant's
products, Mr. Coyote has no other domestic source of supply
to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading
partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a
situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the
consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and
over again.

Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these
larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in
the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Mr.
Coyote seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses,
days lost from professional occupation) of one million
dollars; general damages (mental suffering, injury to
reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees
of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Mr.
Coyote the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant,
its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and
assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm
the right of the individual predator to equal protection
under the law.

--Mr. Harold Schoff, Attorney at Law


(Please note that, unlike the other posts in this thread,
mine is on-topic in misc.legal...)

On Apr 11, 1:40 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

Phil Innes

Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it, Brian?

On Apr 11, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:

If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

PI

I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

Perhaps it's Andean?

The Historian wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:40 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

Phil Innes
Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it, Brian?

Of course.

On Apr 11, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:

If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

PI

I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

P Innes' "British Language" defies translation.

My favorite comment on Mr. Innes' skill in languages:

"...Mr. Innes is certainly a
linguist of remarkable originality. As a sample (or perhaps a
campel),
he has discovered that Old English was still spoken as late as the
1800s
(which for some reason he takes to be the seventeenth century) and
indeed that the tongue is *still* spoken, a result that would astonish
professional linguists -- the sane ones, at any rate. Moreover, he
has
unearthed bits of the Latin lexicon of which Latinists were unaware --
e.g., "secuter."

"Turning to modern languages, Mr. Innes has discerned grammatical
features of which nobody else was aware in several modern tongues.
For
instance, he has discovered that English possesses a "negative case"
--
it is evidently what grammarians formerly called a "double negative"
--
and that the Russian first-person accusative and dative pronouns are
identical, a fact that would surprise speakers of the language. He
has
also found that the verbs "love" and "leave" in Russian are identical,
so that the surly exhortation "Love it or leave it" can be rendered in
Russian without changing the verb in the second clause. Finally, he
has
enriched the lexicon of modern English immeasurably with neologisms
like
"clacque," "dillitantes," "insistance," "come" as a conjunction (in
locutions like "poet come playwright"), and many others."