<<(((((I tend to think))))) would tend to let anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size instantly realize that the poster was advertising the fact that he had no experience or knowledge on the subject and was looking for information from those who might possibly have the knowledge to answer the question. Most of us have enough sense, education and common decency to think about what others are saying before jumping into some kind of tirade. There are always those few exceptions, aren't there??>> Address the point instead of ad hominem attacks, Bill Bauer. You didn't know what where the law was in this case. If you go around selling a product based on credit repair, you should at least know enough about the subject matter to desist from posting false information. If you don't know something as simple as how a judgement gets into your credit file, why should anyone send you their hard earned money? <<Well, since I'm not an attorney and I'm not a legal expert,>> You got that right. And yet you espouse finding errors in court filings done by professionals. If you don't really know that much about the law, how do you think you can beat the professionals at their own game? <<If you don't believe that Mr. Gliha espouses exactly those theories, just go over to his Yahoo discussion board and see for yourself. You will quite quickly see that what I am saying is true. It wasn't my idea, it was and still is his.>> You didn't credit Mr. Gliha with this idea in your original post in the matter. It's only when you were told that what a bile of bunk it was that you back out by saying that it's not your idea. Is that what this Creditwrench thing it? Plagierisms from other kooks? <<Yet you try to backstab me for trying to educate myself.>> 1. I was never your friend. How could I backstab you? 2. If you are still educating yourself about credit, why asking people for their money? <<And I suppose that denial of one's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law isn't considered as material damage???>> Ask Timothy McVeigh how useful it is to find gross errors by other side. Apparantly the FBI kept some files on the case from McVeigh's lawyers before the trial. Obviously, this is a BIG no no. But still, the facts of the law is that unless the files the FBI kept from McVeigh's lawyers point to another guilty party or to McVeigh's innocence, it's not an reversible error by the prosecution's side. Unless you can convince a judge that an error is reversible, it doesn't matter what mistakes you find in the court filing of the other side. TomL
Tom: I believe itâ??s clear weâ??re dealing with instability here, perhaps one prone to Munchhausen tendencies? Checkout his latest proclamation (ah, revelation?) where Iâ??m concerned: But donâ??t allow this menace to get under your skin too bad, itâ??s likely (in the extreme) he wonâ??t be around much longerâ?¦ At least not with an ability to spread disaster. [;-)
