06-24-2008, 03:28 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,432
|
|
You leagle beagle, you! LOL LOL
While you were correcting your "typos' perhaps the careless use of "there" instead of "their" escaped your notice?
You still haven't stated what type of legal service you provide. ( I wonder why!) And, you have answered no legal questions nor provided anything related to the legal field at all. Also, suggesting the original poster has contacted you tickles me to death since, if you will read his own posting, he was satisfied with the information he received from me---both legally and practically. Was there something appreciable you wanted to add ---of course, you don't have time to post this appreciably related information you provided for "other forum users", but you DID have time to compose a (poorly written) reply to me. I feel so special. LOL
I also find it hard to believe anyone would take legal advice from someone who wrote this sentence: "Lets just say the question may have been above your 'legal' understanding in regards to litigation in matters such as this and such a question could expedite and help the gentleman that wrote the post and readers." The original posters question could expedite and help the gentleman that wrote the post and readers? Expedite what? The way the sentence is written, the ORIGINAL POSTER is being expedited. Your sentence also references "litigation in matters such as this", yet you state your 'service' is offered even AFTER litigation is completed. LOL
You cannot even construct a coherent sentence.
My personal favorite: I doubt you will not be able to attrack me as you did in your last post however it would show some maturity on your part and as you stated this is a legal forum."
Not be able to attrack me? Dear Lord have mercy. Double negative? Run on sentence---what does my acting mature have to do with the fact that this is a legal forum? LOL "Attracking you" would show some maturity on my part? Love to help ya out, Skipper, but I haven't a CLUE what you are talking about.
You have said NOTHING regarding the issue at hand---which is Section 1983---something I not only explained in great detail, but something for which the original poster thanked me. He realizes that if there is a case involving civil liability with the officers, it needs to be addressed by a local attorney who could advise him how to proceed. Anyone here viewing the photos is immaterial. The issue isn't how HARD he was hit (excessive force) , the issue is and was the officer acting in accordance with the law.
You have said NOTHING even remotely legally related. LOL Nice back paddle, but holy noodles, you cannot even write a coherent sentence. You cite MY lack of legal understanding, but you never address Section 1983, nor do you reference any case law, such as (Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905) which is, in this case, precedent setting.
You make me laugh.
Last edited by GentleGrace : 06-25-2008 at 06:31 AM.
|