In article <698buoF305m9eU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check©" wrote:
> "Larry" wrote in message
> > "_ 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."
>
> Your confession is noted.
If you have to "note" that you think this is a confession, then by all
means, do so. But the fact that you have to note it demonstrates its
not at all what you claim it to be. |