Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff
Posted by John Codie on 12/28/07
Very true Frank. It continues to be the school yard domination of
"push and shove". I believe the ruling has found the right for the
gentleman his suit to sue for damages, that Ms Kramer has the
ability to pay. If we believed our court system was strictly for
right and wrong, and truth and lie; we are grossly misinformed.
Mississippi's Attorney Generals have relied on Federal Prosecutors
to clean up the white collar crime. Trent Lott's Brother law and
son indicted with son, (Multi-Millons). Trent Lott resignation.
Guilty attorney and family go into the witness protection program.
Syndicated Civil Rights Writer's Son Paul Minor convicted for doing
the same thing. As true as it might appear they are still innocnet,
(with the excpetion of Mr. Minor) who has sentenced. For those who
want to take up the banner and follow a cause you have to be willing
to pay the price. What price Sharon is going to have to to pay
hasn't been determined; but those attorney fees don't come cheap.
It doesn't seem the prize money for the best question will help much.
Your right Frank they do sleep well at night after a glass of Brandy
like of the two attorney's on LA LAW. That is up until they get
caught, and oh those sleepless night we know so well.
On 12/15/07, ff wrote:
> One thing that victims need to keep in mind, is that they live
> this everyday, 24/7/365. For those causing the problem, it's
> not personal, it's business, and they go home at night and
> forget it.
> On 12/15/07, ff wrote:
>> The "words" were in my opinion really stretched beyond the
>> intent of the author, or worse, and the suit is a stretch as
>> well. Even more stretching, is that Mike B., or BB, now use
>> those "words" in their argument to suggest they actually had
>> some effect, in kids, the beneficiary of Sharon's self-
>> On 12/15/07, Deborah wrote:
>>> I believe the term for a statement like that is "excited
>>> utterance", only in this case it is in writing. While it
>>> may be an uncomfortable choice of words, there is something
>>> to be gleaned in it, that is that the people responsible for
>>> perpetrating this fraud condemned untold numbers of adults
>>> and children to continue to suffer and die needlessly. Which
>>> is the greater transgression?
>>> Sharon's true character is apparent to anyone paying a
>>> modicum of attention, as is any blatant attempt at
>>> discrediting her by seizing and continually harping on a
>>> single phrase heatedly churned out for the purpose of
>>> underlying the gravity of what these people were cavalierly
>>> doing in this matter.
>>> Ain't happening.
>>> On 12/11/07, Mike B. wrote:
>>>> "May your children rot in hell, along with all
>>>> the other innocent children you are hurting.”
>>>> Why would the other innocent children be rotting in hell?
Posts on this thread, including this one