On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:31:06 -0800 (PST), Greegor
wrote:

On Jan 20, 12:20*pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:04 pm, Greegor wrote:





On Jan 20, 11:44 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:

"Kent Wills" wrote in message

.. .

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:14:17 -0800 (PST), Greegor
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.

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.

Can you think of a reason WHY the AG's office might actually
defend CPS caseworkers in court?

DS Do you have any credible evidence that the
DS AG's office does defend CPS CWs in court?

Sure Dan, but please stick your neck out first!

Make a BIG STATEMENT that the AG's office
does not, just to make it more fun for me to
prove that they DO.

Dan's never made such a claim.


Your usual game where you ask for proof but
later say you didn't disagree, just asked
for the proof, won't work so well any more.


So you can't offer any. If you were able, you would have done
so.

Commit to a real challenge, Dan!

You just proved you can't offer any proof.


Stake your reputation on it! Oh. Never mind.

It's a shame your reputation as a pathological liar is so well
known. Dan, OTOH, has yet to be caught in a lie that I've seen. And
mistakes do not equal a lie, though I anticipate you trying to claim
they do.


--
Kent
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.