From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   "Allgeheny Spurge"  wrote in message   
   news:g6sscj$r7v$1@aioe.org...   
   >   
   > "Frank"  wrote in message   
   > news:g6r2im$j56$1@aioe.org...   
   >>   
   >> "Allgeheny Spurge"  wrote in message   
   >> news:g6qhki$rnm$1@aioe.org...   
   >>> "Frank"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:g6ocdr$f6s$1@aioe.org...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Allgeheny Spurge"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:g6o737$jbc$1@aioe.org...   
   >>>>> diananapolis0@gmail.com> wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:093efe66-928d-4492-be53-fd3c88609fbc@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>>> On Jul 28, 6:30 pm, diananapol...@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Barratry is an offense, Curio. Remember that. It could save your   
   >>>>> mad ass.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> California Penal Code Section 158: "Common barratry is the practice   
   >>>> of   
   >>>> exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by   
   >>>> imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by   
   >>>> fine not   
   >>>> exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> California Penal Code Section 159: "No person can be convicted of   
   >>>> common   
   >>>> barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings   
   >>>> at law   
   >>>> in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent   
   >>>> to vex   
   >>>> and annoy."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not much of an admonishment.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Prior historical evidence would play into this as well.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I can see Jennifer Love Hewitt and Spielberg playing the part of   
   >>> witness,   
   >>> special effects of devils, heavenly choirs, members of Stargate   
   >>> command   
   >>> (me), lots of folk called Beta and Theta, the whole show. Plus a   
   >>> coupla cute lil devils. ;)   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>    ;) , I love the part of 159 which says, "has excited suits". Many.   
   >> many ways of defining that one least of which is really excited ala   
   >> big time show attorneys. Legal definition is much more mundane.   
   >   
   >   
   > Hey careful now, Diana might want to find herself an excited soot,   
   > what with getting no ??? at all. ;)   
   >   
   > Anyhow, I think she has 2 major probs; 1 money 2 evidence. Aint' no   
   > devils here. Ain't no serial killers here. I think Diana is up to her   
   > old games online, only this time we know for sure who she is, and we   
   > know the details of her psychiatrist. :)   
      
   I was rather looking forward to the first hearing, not happy about the   
   extra costs for the people involved though. I saw no evidence, neither   
   now nor when she first posted her reply to the court. A lot of   
   unsubstantiated goobly gook intertwined with voodoo mind games.   
      
   All these years, and all for naught. :(   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)