Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue
What a relief, it can't be used against me !! Ed says I was talking away and
saying some really funny things. The nurses were laughing too, so I guess he
wasn't pulling my leg.
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill
Don't know if I desire such praise, but thanks anyway. But you know ole'
grannie here--not everyone does. .
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>
> Jackief wrote:
>
> >No the reason I am ques
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie - wondering about the myth that one would not say or do
something under hypnosis or under the influence, that one would not in a
respressed way be inclined to do anyway. With the sodium pentathol,
hypnosis, and even poly
[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
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
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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 people do say some weird
things.
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Dr. L.:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Jackief wrote:
>No the reason I am questioning her statement is not because of your
>statement about
>Jones is trailer trash and he is President. That is not why I
>question her
>statement at all. I don't judge people for where they live.. I
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-25 00:09:01 EST, you write:
<< Hi there Doc, ahem, I wasn't going to mention the mention of the bawdy
songs, I figured that *email* is like truth serum and you'd come back on
that point! Funny how these things pop up for all of us la
"dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jackie, Sue - hi - a question: what is the deal with so-called "truth
serum?" Is that sodium pentathol? Not sure. But isn't there an injection
(usually) that so relaxes a person that the tongue goes wag wag wag?
Waiting to be enlightened... :)
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Hi Jackie,
>
> This is surely a misstatement of most any amicus curiae brief. Certainly
> the argument of any brief before the Supreme Court argues for one side of a
> particular case but the
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HiTerry:
Thank you :)
Sue
> >What is an amicus brief?
> >
> >Sue
>
> "Friend of the court"
>
> It is a brief submitted by a party that has no standing in the case being
> heard. The ACLU regularly files amicus curiae briefs.
> Best, Terry
--
Two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What is an amicus brief?
>
>Sue
"Friend of the court"
It is a brief submitted by a party that has no standing in the case being
heard. The ACLU regularly files amicus curiae briefs.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
What is an amicus brief?
Sue
>
> Hi Terry
>
> Thank you for the site. The info you included in your post was gathered
> from a specific groups of scientists it appears and is an amicus brief
> and is only to present legal arguments or fact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry
>
>Thank you for the site. The info you included in your post was gathered
>from a specific groups of scientists it appears and is an amicus brief
>and is only to present legal arguments or facts on
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
Thank you for the site. The info you included in your post was gathered
from a specific groups of scientists it appears and is an amicus brief
and is only to present legal arguments or facts on behalf of someone.
IOW, it is my belief it is si
15 matches
Mail list logo
