Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue :)
In answer to your question, those who are cannibals are given a private
cell, for obvious reasons. :) And nope he didn't cook his snack that
night, he didn't have the means to :)
Sue Hartigan wrote:
>
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
"Diane M. Michalak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I was wondering if serial killers vary there methods of killing or
> finding a victim to avoid detection or do they follow predictable patterns,
> Jack the Ripper was a serial killer was he not and although he was never
> caught his attacks
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Linda :)
>From looking at this, in reality the child is not considered a person
unless it's born. I would assume alive. Thus if it's injured during a
beating of the mother and born DOA I would think there is nothing they
could do about it, unless they can
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi All :) Here's something new you might be interested in looking at :)
Copsonline has hit the radio air waves on the Internet. Retro-rock.com
and Copsonline creator Mack Pettigrew have teamed up to create the
Retro-Rock Copsonline Show. This show can be hear
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
Now I am dizzy. LOL
On the California Law Page, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html ,
there are 29 different sections each dealing with different aspects of
the law. Family, Civil, Penal, Vehicle, etc.
I did find out that it didn't m
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You don't seem confused to me, Sue, you seem modest. But HERE is
confused: in the Ward criminal case they seem to rely on Civil Code,
that is Family Law code, do they not? I am not familiar with California
Law, but hereabouts Fami
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry - yes. Yes. In attenuated fashion I just posted related
thoughts to Bill; I hope you get a chance to see it, it should arrive
just a minute before this post. But I think you have said *more*, and
this would be quite impor
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oh I see Bill, I can buy that, you're quite clear. It's like in the
Civil Code the rights vest at conception but they don't accrue til birth
(is that a valid extrapolation of your position? Hope you'll comment).
Something like tha
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
A respiratory therapist at Glendale Community Hospital, has just
admitted to killing between 40-50 patients over the past few years.
He says he did this for humanitarian purposes. The news is just
breaking in LA.
Sue
Sue
--
Two rules in life:
1. Do
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-27 17:55:37 EST, you write:
<< Yet your rapist in reality does not
fit the others MO since he's letting his victims live. Usually they
escalate to killing the victims but don't go in reverse to not killing
them. >>
I don't know tha
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc - far from being sorry, we're thrilled that we asked if we get
responses like yours, an entire education. And you've written it out so
cleary, so thanks. Thanks! Now, would a law that said there are rights
and protections f
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
An American Eskimo, Tahl clashed with authority for the first time at
age three, after deliberately hurling a brick through a window. More
arrests followed, but his crimes remained petty until the spring of
1965, when unexpected violent urges surfaced at th
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
One day after defendant Reco Jones's controversial testimony, both the
prosecution and the defense presented closing arguments, with
prosecutor Kevin Simowski portraying Jones as a cold-blooded killer who
ate lunch as the bodies of his ex-girlfriend Y
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi all :)
I'm not sure how many of you are members to Netcourt, I am and they have
a real nice service for trial transcripts, but here's a notice from them
for those who are interested :) (As you can tell I'm a bit behind in
email yet again, I have decided th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie and Terry :) This message is to long...
Hi Jackie,
I am responding to what I got from Kathy.
>> I have snipped and am responding to the pertinent parts of your post.
First, >> I gather that unless you can provide a site
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have found on the net the UFO chapter in the Fire fighters Manual on the
net.
Its pretty large though (51k), if anyone would like to read it. I'll mail it
to them, I wouldn't want to cause our host any trouble though so I won't
post it. Just to let
y
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The first note for anyone who decides they are smarter than the DA, You
are NOT smarter than the DA it is NOT advisable to attempt to prove you
are, it will do nothing but end up showing a side of you that you do NOT
want the jury to see. Second note
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The cross was unbelievable! I was constantly going from open mouthed
shock to LOL, I have NEVER seen a cross like this! It was a work of
wonder! LOL I just emailed the summary to the list :)
I expect a quick conviction, as soon as he tried to claim the 5th th
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The first note for anyone who decides they are smarter than the DA, You
are NOT smarter than the DA it is NOT advisable to attempt to prove you
are, it will do nothing but end up showing a side of you that you do NOT
want the jury to see. Second note if your g
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc :)
One never knows, usually the only reason the crime spree stops is the
assaulter has gone to prison, died or left the area. At least that is
what has always happened in the past. For them to stop on their own is
unheard of at least to my knowledge. Y
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
You said it exactly the way that it is probably ment to be taken,
however in the Supreme Court decision it says:
While there is no statutory definition of "child," the Legislature has
defined "minor" to mean "an individual who is under 18 years
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
Thanks. Now I know one additional fact concerning Whitewater. :)
Sue
>
> HI Sue,
>
> One correction here. The Clintons lost money on their Whitewater
> investments.
>
> Bill
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you kno
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
You have it exactly the way that I see it.
And the thing I can't understand is how can they say in the civil law
that the fetus is a child, and then the Supreme Court say it isn't.
Can't have it both ways, IMO. Either it is, or it isn't.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems rather clear to me, Linda. The most extreme case is when a fetus is
killed which is not covered by 43.1. That has been found to be murder
when it is done without the mother's consent. But if a fetus is to be
"deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
I still think that the way the statute reads the fetus must be
"subsequently born" before he/she can have legal standing with respect to
any rights. Yes, the large interest in the mother's protection and
survival is paramount with respe
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Steve:
On the abortion issue, I think that Terry brought up something that to
me makes sense. That issue relates to the rights of the woman. In this
case the woman's rights were violated because she had no choice as to
whether her baby was or wasn't
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Here is the Supreme Court decision. What it comes down to is: "A
pregnant woman is not a "mother" and a fetus is not a "child" as those
terms are used in that section. Accordingly, the section had no
application to the defendant. The judgment on count
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-27 14:44:21 EST, you write:
<< Hi Steve - you have added a new time of accrual of 'personhood'!
Offline we had discussed the standards that date 'personhood' from
conception (the East), from the first independent breath (one and onl
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would like to apologize to you all for the large file size, I thought that
no matter what way I post them there going to take the same amount of time
to download. Hope you find them interesting.
Best Spooky::-)
=
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil
statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting
that an unborn offspring is a child and thus a person, with life and
liberty rights. T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:43:22 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes [in part]:
>
>>Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT
>>"subsequently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
One correction here. The Clintons lost money on their Whitewater
investments.
Bill
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:55:47 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>I have to admit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
I don't thnk the law said that the fetus was a child before birth. As I
said, I think the key element here is that the fetus is subsequently
born. The implication is that if the fetus is not subsequently born then
no rights are conveyed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
It seems to be a type of Catch 22 situation. I have heard of cases (wish
I could remember the reference names) where the state has waited until
the birth of a baby to determine if damage had been done to the fetus
when the mother was as
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Steve - you have added a new time of accrual of 'personhood'!
Offline we had discussed the standards that date 'personhood' from
conception (the East), from the first independent breath (one and only
one of the American Views)
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJ12 Documents
One of the most controversial documents to be uncovered in the anals of UFO
research is called the MJ Documents. These documents were left under Jaime
Shandera's home door by an unknown source in 1984. At this Mr. Shandera was
a producer
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>There are a lot of technical and basically humanistic questions here,
>and all posts will help... glad you chose to post, and please feel free
>to correct or amend the above. :) Best, LDMF.
>
As far as the law goes over here a fetus is not a baby or
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi, I was wondering if serial killers vary there methods of killing or
finding a victim to avoid detection or do they follow predictable patterns,
Jack the Ripper was a serial killer was he not and although he was never
caught his attacks were always t
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
Believe me you are helping. And we appreciate it.
Yes I do remember that case.
Please keep giving any ideas that you have.
My idea here is that if the woman had been holding the child in her arms
when the father attacked her and the child
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes [in part]:
>Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT
>"subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given
>the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill - agreed, in the civil case the fetus would simply have
prospective standing, it seems: future access to relief, once being born
But the criminal code wouldn't even give *that* much. Based on argments
from "majority" supp
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Move over, Steve. Didn't we establish that Satan is a woman? Get off my
>throne, buddy!
>Cec
Steve, quickly puts his tail between his legs and scurries into a corner
hoping that the master will show leniency
Spooky and Scared
Subscribe/Unsubscr
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Kathy and Terry:
Wouldn't anyone who kills, no matter what the reason, a "series" of
people be consider a serial killer. Be it revenge, sexual, or
otherwise. Just wondering. :)
Sue
>
> Hi Kathy,
>
> >As I said before I am by far not a expert on
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I have to admit I know next to nothing about what happened with
Whitewater. What I do know is;
Susan McDougal and her husband either owned or ran a bank and they
agreed to give loans that were not legal.
There was some land that someone owne
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
> >Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
> >restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
> >restraint or harm, from personal insult, fro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:27:11 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Hi Terry:
>>
>>Sounds like good old political talking to me. LOL
>>
>>Seriously though there isn't an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>
>
>43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
>Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
>restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
>restraint or harm, from personal insult,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy,
>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>As I said before I am by far not a expert on SK's I do know a bit about
>them though...
Only a fool would question that. :-}
>The extra Chromosome as you are discussing below may be a key into the
>cause of SK's, it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hi Terry:
>
>Sounds like good old political talking to me. LOL
>
>Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if
>Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about it.
>
>Sue
OK, Sue,
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
Bobby keeps telling me just to play around with it. That is the only
way to learn. But every time I do something like that it takes him
about 4 or more hours to figure out how to clean up the mess I make.
Seems that I never remember what it
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
Do you think it is possible that the antisocial behavior could be due to
the fact that there is so many different ways now to relate to people
without face to face confrontation. Such as email. :)
People don't have to get involved personall
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
I think that you are right about that one. Even during his first
campaign he was running with the Hollywood celebs, and was sort of a
part of them. Even went on the Arsenio Hall show and played his horn.
People do tend to forgive celebs any
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
Sounds good to me. But we definately need to go after the big bucks,
because Ed is going to want a big percentage of this thing, that is for
sure.
>
> Hi Sue
>
> LOL How about a percentage of what I get??
>
> jackief
--
Two rules in l
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
It is mostly mumbo jumbo. Nothing anyone could understand much less use
against someone.
Sue
>
> Hi Dr. L
>
> Sue would know more than me about sodium penothol. I only know from
> experience the effects of the stuff. Yep, Sue, some peop
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
Someone on one of those Sunday News shows said that the WH and everyone
on the "hill" keep right up on those polls that are published. I'm sure
that they are all aware of the publics feelings about Clinton.
I honestly don't think it will g
55 matches
Mail list logo
