Follow us!

    Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff

    Posted by ff on 12/28/07


    At this point, LA Law is probably grateful just for being mentioned at

    Your statement to the effect that there are often consequences that go
    with doing what's right lays it out nicely. Too few are willing to
    practice that. Was it always this way, or is this just a sign of the


    On 12/28/07, Johncodie wrote:
    > Oh, I am going to be sued by the screen writers, I have defamed "LA
    > LAW" with Boston Legal, those attorneys sound alike to me. No intent
    > intended; But for those still suffering after these two, years, it
    > my family four more years to find the right time and place. Good
    > do come to those who are willing to wait, and work hard for the desired
    > results. As far as all those experts mentioned, by defintion a little
    > more than a drip in measure, and not more than a dribble for
    > jc
    > On 12/28/07, ff wrote:
    >> johncodie:
    >> Thanks for the interesting, key points/considerations. Excerpts:
    >> On 12/28/07, John Codie wrote:
    >> 1.) > If we believed our court system was strictly for
    >>> right and wrong, and truth and lie; we are grossly misinformed.
    >> You hit the reality of it!
    >> 2.) For those who
    >>> want to take up the banner and follow a cause you have to be
    >> willing
    >>> to pay the price.
    >> You can say that again!
    >> 3.) 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.
    >> And, they do get caught!
    >>> jc
    >>> 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.
    >>>> ff
    >>>> 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-
    >>>>> sacrifice.
    >>>>> ff
    >>>>> 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

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.