If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why Caseworker Perjury charges were dropped - Subpoena's not answered?
"Greegor" wrote in message ... 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? ***Sure, I can think of *A* reason. But it's highly unlikely. IMHO. Of course. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why Caseworker Perjury charges were dropped - Subpoena's not answered?
"Kent Wills" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:04:30 -0800 (PST), 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? None. Maybe you could enlighten me, and anyone else who is unable to make up a reason. I'm sure that the state would certainly defend a state employee who was being sued over issues arising from performing their jobs. Other than that...why would they provide legal representation to someone who they are prosecuting? That makes no sense. -- Kent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why Caseworker Perjury charges were dropped - Subpoena's not answered?
"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. -- Kent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why Caseworker Perjury charges were dropped - Subpoena's not answered?
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:30 -0800 (PST), Greegor
wrote: KW None of this alters the fact that the AG's office KW acts as a prosecutor and not a defense attorney. You can't think of any circumstances where the AG serves as defense attorneys? Not in a situation as the woman who has been charged finds herself. Dan? -- Kent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Subpoenas not answered
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. Was some confusion needed? I'll give you another clue. AFTER this caseworker is prosecuted for criminal perjury, what do you think the next legal action will be? Does somebody's refusal to turn over documents on a subpoena for a criminal prosecution indicate anything to you? Do you have evidence there was willful refusal? Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to answer for it. However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information. Do you have anything to support the implication? -- Kent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Subpoenas not answered
"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? Do you have evidence there was willful refusal? Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to answer for it. However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information. Do you have anything to support the implication? What do you think, Betty? ***Greg, I just don't know what to think....no one has told me yet! LOL |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Subpoenas not answered
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:43:36 -0600, "dragonsgirl"
wrote: [...] Do you have evidence there was willful refusal? Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to answer for it. However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information. Do you have anything to support the implication? What do you think, Betty? ***Greg, I just don't know what to think....no one has told me yet! LOL I'm wondering why Greg chose to decline answering the questions I raised in favor of asking your opinion. Very odd. -- Kent "I am erudite but not Buckelyesque (sic)" Erudite Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008 Message-ID: |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Subpoenas not answered
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:02:40 -0800 (PST), Greegor
wrote: [...] 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! How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer their subpoena, Betty? And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty? How does asking Betty these questions answer the points I've raised? -- Kent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Subpoenas not answered
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Subpoenas not answered
"Kent Wills" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:02:40 -0800 (PST), Greegor wrote: [...] 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! How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer their subpoena, Betty? And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty? How does asking Betty these questions answer the points I've raised? It doesn't. That's just what Greg does. That's all. -- Kent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lisa Welchel promoting child abuse | LaTreen Washington | General | 2 | July 17th 06 10:06 PM |
Lisa Welchel promoting child abuse | Geek the Girl | General | 3 | July 17th 06 04:34 AM |
"A Dragon By The Tail" by Lisa Reagan | john | Kids Health | 5 | August 3rd 05 11:36 PM |
FAO Lisa: day/night confusion | Dagny | Breastfeeding | 2 | January 1st 04 04:46 PM |
Review: Mona Lisa Smile (**) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | December 14th 03 03:33 AM |