"Greegor" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 1:43 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 6:15 pm, Kent Wills wrote:





On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:07:38 -0800 (PST), Greegor

wrote:
On Jan 21, 2:39 pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Kent Wills" wrote in message

. ..

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:44:39 GMT, "dragonsgirl"
wrote:

KW Someone from the AG's office isn't
KW likely going to be a defense attorney.
KW The Attorney General's office PROSECUTES.

Would you like to word that better Kent?

Are you of the opinion that one of the AG's lawyers would act
as the accused's defense counsel? Not even you can be this
stupid.

That's almost as stupid as my ex claiming that I provided the 'D.A.
who
handled' his divorce case with an affidavit of relevant facts.
LOL
Like everyone is stupid enough to believe that a DA does divorce
cases.

I suppose someone from the DA's office could do it. However,
the person would most certainly be acting as the person's divorce
attorney and NOT a representative of the DA's office.

Sure...the state office is going to provide an attorney to defend
the
state
employee that they are prosecuting.
LOL

They might have to give a public defender, but that's a whole
different
ball
game.

If she is indigent, she MUST be assigned an attorney from the
Public Defender's office unless she waives right to counsel. She
would NOT be assigned one from the AG's office, since that's a
separate entity.
None of this alters the fact that the AG's office acts as a
prosecutor and not a defense attorney.

It never happened. No DA was involved in his divorce case.
It's simply part of another wild fantasy life that he's conjured up
in
his
own head...one where DA's handle divorce cases and dad's donate sperm
to as
many kids as possible in their quest for the dad of the year award.
Crazy man.

I know nothing of somebody's claim that a
District Attorney was involved in a divorce case.

Why was that mixed in with this Perjury case
against an Iowa caseworker named Marie Mahler?

As is often the case, the discussion moved away from the
original topic.
Since you included the part where the discussion altered, you
can't honestly claim you didn't see the shift.

G Was some confusion needed?

G I'll give you another clue.
G
G AFTER this caseworker is prosecuted for
G criminal perjury, what do you think the
G next legal action will be?
G
G Does somebody's refusal to turn over
G documents on a subpoena for a criminal
G prosecution indicate anything to you?

KW Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
KW Some subpoenas went unanswered, and
KW someone will have to answer for it.
KW However, you act as if you KNOW one or
KW more people WILLFULLY withheld the
KW documents/information.
KW Do you have anything to support the implication?

G What do you think, Betty?

BW Greg, I just don't know what to think..
BW ..no one has told me yet! LOL

I thought you said you are an independent thinker!


***Shh. Shh-shh-shhh! I'm trying to hear someone tell me what to think.

How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer
their subpoena, Betty?

***How do I like it? How would I know?

And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty?

***Hmmmm. Thinking, thinking....AH! I've got it by God!
And no one told me even!
It means that they think they have something to HIDE!


Greg, seriously, do you think that you think that was some kind of
revelation?
There are usually only two reasons for failure to comply...one: the party
simply does not have the information requested or doesn't have access to it,
or two, they are trying to cover something up.
That was obvious from the first reading of this story.
You act like you uncovered the secret of the century or something.