In article <6985d7F2v4bqpU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> >> "Larry" wrote in message
> >>> richard wrote:
> >>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a
> >>>>> Missouri woman
> >>>>> Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online
> >>>>> social
> >>>>> network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed
> >>>>> suicide.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok let's clarify this a bit more. From what I have read online is,
> >>>> the indictment has not yet been granted. It is only a request by
> >>>> two unnamed federal agents from Los Angeles.
> >>>
> >>> You've read wrong. The grand jury voted the indictment already -
> >>> as the very first sentence of the story you replied to stated.
> >>>
> >>> For further proof, a copy of the indictment is here:
> >>>
> >>> http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/15/my.space.drew.indictment.pd
> >>> f
> >>>
> >>> (This copy does not have the grand jury foreperson's signature,
> >>> likely to protect their anonymity.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The suicide, and crime took place in 2006.
> >>>> The state of Missouri did not see there was enough evidence to
> >>>> charge anyone with anything.
> >>>> So now there is sufficient evidence on the federal level?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, because different laws are involved. Missouri authorities
> >>> investigated the case but determined that no Missouri law applied to
> >>> these facts. The feds investigated the case, and they determined
> >>> that there were several federal laws that this woman violated.
> >>>
> >>>> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
> >>>> will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like
> >>>> holy hell.
> >>>
> >>> You always bitch, Richard. And you're always on the wrong side of
> >>> the issue.
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO !!
> >
> > Seriously, get help. You can't refrain from responding to a post of
> > mine, can you?
>
> This from the moron Larry who's enfatuated with battling Richard for
> the Usenet Title of the World's Most Ignorant Legal Imbecile.
I think the word you're looking for is "infatuated." Still, why m,ust
you respond to every post I make, even using multiple screen names to
make it look like you have more support than you really do?
You don't truly think you're fooling anyone, do you? |