| |
Main
Date: 28 Jan 2009 09:00:44
From: johnny_t
Subject: Complaint to the Bar Association (Lafferty)
|
Dear Brian,
I believe that your per curiam client may well have filed two complaints
about you with the Bar Association, and will, with whatever assistance
I may render to him, soon be suing you in PA.
Earlier this month, you gratuitously advised him at
<[email protected] > and at
<[email protected] >
as to the desirability and methods for and of effecting proper service,
and again at <[email protected] > about logistics.
This established the client-attorney relationship between the two of you
in the several ways set out in MA and PA law. The email attachments show
that he had knowledge that you were, at all the relevant times, a lawyer,
though unlicensed to practise in Pennsylvania. You did none of those
things considered necessary to sever such a relationship.
Then on January 14, 2009, as shown in the attachments, he wrote to you at
<6dd8e4a1-45bf-4b1b-a7fd-4b7c8f094e2a@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com >
"I have until January 8, 2009 to serve them. I will be mailing the
service of process to the Lubbock Seriff no later than January 19, 008."
You thereafter failed to advise your client that
a) January 8, 2009 had already passed by January 14, 2009.
b) January 19, 008 had already passed by January 14, 2009.
c) Even if your client is assumed to have meant 2009 instead of 008, that
date of January 19, 2009 was after January 8, 2009 and so service would
be ineffective.
d) The correct "last date" was in fact January 27, 2009, not January 8,
2009, which date has (in effect) now passed.
e) The correct "last date" never was January 28, 2009, which was like GM
Anand winning a match by half a point in that both claims were made by
you, Brian, as a result of your work, and both claims have equal merit
(none).
I am now in a position to confirm that your client has failed to serve
the defendants within the time limit set by the judge, who dismissed all
his other claims with prejudice, and dismissed the claim that would have
been the subject of this process with prejudice, but with special leave
to serve on or before January 27, 2009. There is no legal remedy now
available to your client, this date having (in effect) passed. Finis.
Thus, by following your guidance and advice, your client has forever lost
his opportunity to obtain redress and recompense for the grievous wrongs
and losses which he has suffered.
How do you intend to address your client's monetary and other losses,
Brian? You need to give your attention to this matter, and this matter
alone, and give up the ridiculous idea of seeking election. To vote for
you would be to vote for your client, who has something "on" you, and a
vote for bankruptcy and disgrace for the USCF. "Over my dead body."
I think your other client, now an ex-client, has excellent chances in
his well-crafted suit in federal court (Sloan vs. Smith et al) and is to
be congratulated for ignoring your advice.
Happy 2009, and (((HUGS))) to the family.
As always,
"Pickard" Pro Hac Vice
(Search your memory, Brian, and you will get it. Eventually.)
Attachments
From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
Reply-To: [email protected]
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:31:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1231281088 98.118.116.182 (Tue, 06 Jan 2009
17:31:28 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:31:28 EST
Path:
!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.n
et.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail
Malone Process Service?
3415 37th Street, Lubbock, TX? - (877) 997-3783
Kurlander Legal Support Services?
PO Box 5681, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 777-3601
US Legal Support?
1717 Avenue K, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 747-8500
Professional Civil Process?
1112 Texas Ave, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 749-2727?
Directions?
From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
Reply-To: [email protected]
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
References: <[email protected] >
<ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com >
In-Reply-To:
<ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com >
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:58:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1231282682 98.118.116.182 (Tue, 06 Jan 2009
17:58:02 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:58:02 EST
Path:
!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.n
et.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail
Mr. Parker
Service must be done at the request of a party--the Plaintiff. Only
a party can authorize service of process for his or her complaint.
From: RayGordon <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
<30f953bd-79d3-4b29-91c4-ad198b4d17bc@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com >
References: <[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.81.95.92
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231296479 11866 127.0.0.1 (7 Jan 2009 02:47:59
GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:47:59 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.81.95.92;
posting-account=y3LpGgkAAACga-IOTQc72MNb9_cHuLTj
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Wow, an idiot lawyer (as evidenced by his idiot advice) wants to
"help" me, despite my not having asked for help, and despite his
being an attorney who should know the difference between officious
help to a chess federation and officious help to a LITIGANT. The
former requires a political refutation; the latter, however, does not.
Mr. Lafferty lost his toll sticker on the high road the day he
announced his candidacy for the board of directors, for even with the
best intentions, the APPEARANCE of a power-grab injects self-interest
into the mix, though this does not mean he would be BAD on theboard,
but I'd rather hvae a number of other ex-players who were serious back
in the day before going on to real life.
I'm particularly suspicious of his use of vague adjectives in his
campaigning ("ethical" or "transparent" mean nothing until applied to
specific issues), but when he starts accusing me to commit litigation
suicide (which is what his advice would potentially cause) tells me
the man either does not know which lines he is crossing, or, worse,
does. Unfortunately, if I were to complain about what he is trying to
do to the Bar Association, I would be more likely to be sanctioned as
a paralegal for actually thinking that an attorney might know what he
is talking about when it comes to service of process or other
"parlegal stuff."
Lafferty is playing the "reluctant hero" for all it is worth. This is
a "stock internet marketing character" that has proven very effective
and profitable for those who use it, but with mixed results on those
the hero is supposed to defend.
I have ONE question for Brian: "Who protects us from our protectors?"
I do find the assumption that I will not or could not get an attorney
for the legal equivalent of two queens against none, especiaqlly in
this economy, amusing.
As I said before, I actively oppose Mr. Lafferty's candidacy for the
board of the United States Chess Federation. Now I must also
recommend that he attend paralegal school if he wishes to continue to
posting on topics such as this, because it is obvious his knowledge is
lacking.
From: RayGordon <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] >
<ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.81.95.92
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231296998 23717 127.0.0.1 (7 Jan 2009 02:56:38
GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:56:38 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: 33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.81.95.92;
posting-account=y3LpGgkAAACga-IOTQc72MNb9_cHuLTj
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
In ONE case, I didn't serve John Doe defendants because the court
would not let me amend in order to get the summonses I needed, and the
primary discovery led to Penn saying it could not identify one of its
own students.
KNow what though? Any argument requiring more than a junior high
education is too complex to be presenting on USENET.
Did it ever occur to your pea legal brain that I served these people
the way I did INTENTIONALLY? Despite what people have said here,
there is NO precedent on any meaningful level regarding this type of
service, and at the cost of service per defendant, I needed to take a
risk that most attorneys would never, and coult never for a third-
party client.
From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
References: <[email protected] >
<ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com >
<[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
In-Reply-To:
<[email protected] >
Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:48:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1231458488 98.118.116.182 (Thu, 08 Jan 2009
18:48:08 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:48:08 EST
Path:
!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.n
et.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail
Ray, possible point of interest. I'm told that Polgar gave a simul in
Philadelphia not too long ago.
From: RayGordon <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Parker about to attempt service on Polgar, Truong
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:42:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
<6dd8e4a1-45bf-4b1b-a7fd-4b7c8f094e2a@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.81.95.92
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231998176 32175 127.0.0.1 (15 Jan 2009
05:42:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:42:56 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.81.95.92;
posting-account=y3LpGgkAAACga-IOTQc72MNb9_cHuLTj
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
For those who care, I will be attemping to serve Polgar and/or Truong,
as follows.
I will be using the Lubbock County Sheriff's office to do the
service. I will list both their Texas Tech address and their home
address for service.
I will also be using certified mail that must be signed by the
defendant. As long as they agree to sign for the lawsuit service, it
is valid under PA rule 403.
I have until January 8 to serve them. I will be mailing the service
of process to the Lubbock Seriff no later than January 19, 008.
Now why have people said that there are issues relating to serving
them? Will they not simply greet the process server and accept
service? Why do people not have faith in humanity anymore? I find
that abhorrent.
They call them CIVIL actions for a reason. They are how CIVILIZED
people settle their disputes, in a CIVILIZED fashion. I am sure that
civilized individuals such as Truong and Polgar will be more than
accommodating at my attempts to serve them with process.
I just KNOW.
I think.
Maybe.
Well, I hvae faith in humanity. . It's time others did.
(NOTE TO LAWYER KIBBITZERS: have fun).
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 13:15:06
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Complaint to the Bar Association (Lafferty)
|
THEY NEVER LEARN
When are these anon remailers going to learn that nobody pays
attention to stuff they want to expire in six days.
And so it goes.
johnny_t wrote:
> Dear Brian,
>
> I believe that your per curiam client may well have filed two complaints
> about you with the Bar Association, and will, with whatever assistance
> I may render to him, soon be suing you in PA.
>
> Earlier this month, you gratuitously advised him at
> <[email protected]> and at
> <[email protected]>
> as to the desirability and methods for and of effecting proper service,
> and again at <[email protected]> about logistics.
>
> This established the client-attorney relationship between the two of you
> in the several ways set out in MA and PA law. The email attachments show
> that he had knowledge that you were, at all the relevant times, a lawyer,
> though unlicensed to practise in Pennsylvania. You did none of those
> things considered necessary to sever such a relationship.
>
> Then on January 14, 2009, as shown in the attachments, he wrote to you at
> <6dd8e4a1-45bf-4b1b-a7fd-4b7c8f094e2a@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
>
> "I have until January 8, 2009 to serve them. I will be mailing the
> service of process to the Lubbock Seriff no later than January 19, 008."
>
> You thereafter failed to advise your client that
>
> a) January 8, 2009 had already passed by January 14, 2009.
>
> b) January 19, 008 had already passed by January 14, 2009.
>
> c) Even if your client is assumed to have meant 2009 instead of 008, that
> date of January 19, 2009 was after January 8, 2009 and so service would
> be ineffective.
>
> d) The correct "last date" was in fact January 27, 2009, not January 8,
> 2009, which date has (in effect) now passed.
>
> e) The correct "last date" never was January 28, 2009, which was like GM
> Anand winning a match by half a point in that both claims were made by
> you, Brian, as a result of your work, and both claims have equal merit
> (none).
>
> I am now in a position to confirm that your client has failed to serve
> the defendants within the time limit set by the judge, who dismissed all
> his other claims with prejudice, and dismissed the claim that would have
> been the subject of this process with prejudice, but with special leave
> to serve on or before January 27, 2009. There is no legal remedy now
> available to your client, this date having (in effect) passed. Finis.
>
> Thus, by following your guidance and advice, your client has forever lost
> his opportunity to obtain redress and recompense for the grievous wrongs
> and losses which he has suffered.
>
> How do you intend to address your client's monetary and other losses,
> Brian? You need to give your attention to this matter, and this matter
> alone, and give up the ridiculous idea of seeking election. To vote for
> you would be to vote for your client, who has something "on" you, and a
> vote for bankruptcy and disgrace for the USCF. "Over my dead body."
>
> I think your other client, now an ex-client, has excellent chances in
> his well-crafted suit in federal court (Sloan vs. Smith et al) and is to
> be congratulated for ignoring your advice.
>
> Happy 2009, and (((HUGS))) to the family.
>
> As always,
>
> "Pickard" Pro Hac Vice
> (Search your memory, Brian, and you will get it. Eventually.)
>
> Attachments
>
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:31:28 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
> X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1231281088 98.118.116.182 (Tue, 06 Jan 2009
> 17:31:28 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:31:28 EST
> Path:
> !cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.n
> et.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail
>
> Malone Process Service?
> 3415 37th Street, Lubbock, TX? - (877) 997-3783
>
> Kurlander Legal Support Services?
> PO Box 5681, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 777-3601
>
> US Legal Support?
> 1717 Avenue K, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 747-8500
>
> Professional Civil Process?
> 1112 Texas Ave, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 749-2727?
> Directions?
>
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
> References: <[email protected]>
> <ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> In-Reply-To:
> <ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:58:02 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
> X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1231282682 98.118.116.182 (Tue, 06 Jan 2009
> 17:58:02 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:58:02 EST
> Path:
> !cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.n
> et.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail
>
> Mr. Parker
>
> Service must be done at the request of a party--the Plaintiff. Only
> a party can authorize service of process for his or her complaint.
>
> From: RayGordon <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:47:58 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID:
> <30f953bd-79d3-4b29-91c4-ad198b4d17bc@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> References: <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.81.95.92
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231296479 11866 127.0.0.1 (7 Jan 2009 02:47:59
> GMT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:47:59 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.81.95.92;
> posting-account=y3LpGgkAAACga-IOTQc72MNb9_cHuLTj
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> Trident/4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> Wow, an idiot lawyer (as evidenced by his idiot advice) wants to
> "help" me, despite my not having asked for help, and despite his
> being an attorney who should know the difference between officious
> help to a chess federation and officious help to a LITIGANT. The
> former requires a political refutation; the latter, however, does not.
>
> Mr. Lafferty lost his toll sticker on the high road the day he
> announced his candidacy for the board of directors, for even with the
> best intentions, the APPEARANCE of a power-grab injects self-interest
> into the mix, though this does not mean he would be BAD on theboard,
> but I'd rather hvae a number of other ex-players who were serious back
> in the day before going on to real life.
>
> I'm particularly suspicious of his use of vague adjectives in his
> campaigning ("ethical" or "transparent" mean nothing until applied to
> specific issues), but when he starts accusing me to commit litigation
> suicide (which is what his advice would potentially cause) tells me
> the man either does not know which lines he is crossing, or, worse,
> does. Unfortunately, if I were to complain about what he is trying to
> do to the Bar Association, I would be more likely to be sanctioned as
> a paralegal for actually thinking that an attorney might know what he
> is talking about when it comes to service of process or other
> "parlegal stuff."
>
> Lafferty is playing the "reluctant hero" for all it is worth. This is
> a "stock internet marketing character" that has proven very effective
> and profitable for those who use it, but with mixed results on those
> the hero is supposed to defend.
>
> I have ONE question for Brian: "Who protects us from our protectors?"
>
> I do find the assumption that I will not or could not get an attorney
> for the legal equivalent of two queens against none, especiaqlly in
> this economy, amusing.
>
> As I said before, I actively oppose Mr. Lafferty's candidacy for the
> board of the United States Chess Federation. Now I must also
> recommend that he attend paralegal school if he wishes to continue to
> posting on topics such as this, because it is obvious his knowledge is
> lacking.
>
> From: RayGordon <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:56:38 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID:
> <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> <ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.81.95.92
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231296998 23717 127.0.0.1 (7 Jan 2009 02:56:38
> GMT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:56:38 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: 33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.81.95.92;
> posting-account=y3LpGgkAAACga-IOTQc72MNb9_cHuLTj
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> Trident/4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> In ONE case, I didn't serve John Doe defendants because the court
> would not let me amend in order to get the summonses I needed, and the
> primary discovery led to Penn saying it could not identify one of its
> own students.
>
> KNow what though? Any argument requiring more than a junior high
> education is too complex to be presenting on USENET.
>
> Did it ever occur to your pea legal brain that I served these people
> the way I did INTENTIONALLY? Despite what people have said here,
> there is NO precedent on any meaningful level regarding this type of
> service, and at the cost of service per defendant, I needed to take a
> risk that most attorneys would never, and coult never for a third-
> party client.
>
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> References: <[email protected]>
> <ccf4b564-c2be-420a-9581-71144d796c31@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> In-Reply-To:
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:48:08 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1231458488 98.118.116.182 (Thu, 08 Jan 2009
> 18:48:08 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:48:08 EST
> Path:
> !cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.n
> et.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail
>
> Ray, possible point of interest. I'm told that Polgar gave a simul in
> Philadelphia not too long ago.
>
> From: RayGordon <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Parker about to attempt service on Polgar, Truong
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:42:56 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID:
> <6dd8e4a1-45bf-4b1b-a7fd-4b7c8f094e2a@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.81.95.92
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231998176 32175 127.0.0.1 (15 Jan 2009
> 05:42:56 GMT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:42:56 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: [email protected]
> Injection-Info: f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.81.95.92;
> posting-account=y3LpGgkAAACga-IOTQc72MNb9_cHuLTj
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> Trident/4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> For those who care, I will be attemping to serve Polgar and/or Truong,
> as follows.
>
> I will be using the Lubbock County Sheriff's office to do the
> service. I will list both their Texas Tech address and their home
> address for service.
>
> I will also be using certified mail that must be signed by the
> defendant. As long as they agree to sign for the lawsuit service, it
> is valid under PA rule 403.
>
> I have until January 8 to serve them. I will be mailing the service
> of process to the Lubbock Seriff no later than January 19, 008.
>
> Now why have people said that there are issues relating to serving
> them? Will they not simply greet the process server and accept
> service? Why do people not have faith in humanity anymore? I find
> that abhorrent.
>
> They call them CIVIL actions for a reason. They are how CIVILIZED
> people settle their disputes, in a CIVILIZED fashion. I am sure that
> civilized individuals such as Truong and Polgar will be more than
> accommodating at my attempts to serve them with process.
>
> I just KNOW.
>
> I think.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Well, I hvae faith in humanity. . It's time others did.
>
> (NOTE TO LAWYER KIBBITZERS: have fun).
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 08:30:18
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Liarry talking to himself (THEY NEVER LEARN)
|
Liarry Parr wrote:
> THEY NEVER LEARN
>
> When are these anon remailers going to learn that nobody pays
> attention to stuff they want to expire in six days.
>
> And so it goes.
>
> johnny_t <[email protected]> wrote from a dizum:
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> > Dear [snip]
Liarry is talking to himself again.
Classic misdirection by our man in the jungle.
AOL never discloses any identity except to the feds who know already,
which is why if we stick to the mainstream "Murray" muddled explanation of
events, FSS was safe from discovery until Mottershead struck.
Long ago it was concluded that the only person who would regularly,
painfully use remailers instead of just an AOL pool would be someone with a
strong commitment to USCF politics but who was unable to use AOL (US).
Who are the foreigners in RGCP? Handfuls of bored Canucks, Brits, Germans,
maybe Aussies, enough of each to cloud issues of identity (eg, Jerzy of
many names). Marcus the pretend-Kittsian is in Florida. Sanny the Spammer
is in some third world hellhole.
Which leaves 'GM' Mig and Liarry, who need to mask everything. Because if
you see daily chess dirt coming from Buenos Aires, you don't need to know
how exactly it flaps its wings before crapping to know the crapper is the
common cheat whose online rating jumped by 400 points in one month.
Mig is eliminated by other means. That leaves Liarry. Who has motive.
Where he is, people looking like Paul T rule. Egalitarian as Liarry is,
at times that must grate with him. This little game, of setting Paul up,
or did I mean "ip", makes Liarry feel he is still at the center of events
and not just the boring Chicken Little blowhard everybody "Marks as Read".
So the first question is, when is Chicken Parr going to stop talking to
himself?
The second question is, how did Liarry induce one of the "boys" at his
"office" to hack Paul's Tablet PC?
Back then, it was Chess Lies from its Ed. Now it is Chess Lice from the
Slimes. The more things change, the more they stay the same. And so it
goes.
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in news:wFP9l.5116$Es4.814@nwrddc01.
gnilink.net:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting post. Interesting syntax.
>>
>> Syntax can be put on and taken off like a suit of clothes.
>
> Yup. :-)
|
|
