"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
...

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote in message
...
"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:12:31 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 19:54:50 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:19:28 -0500, "The AUK WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT
CHAMPION, Emmett BADASS Gulley" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:02:59 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:57:18 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote in
message
...

Don't want to rub it in but didn't I warn you from the
git-go not to
trust
the Rube. . . The only reason he gave you a gratis account
was to
try
to
use you. When that eventuality went by the wayside he pulled
the
plug.

Gary is a user. As long as he can use people for something
or other
he
hangs around. As soon as he finds out he can't use somebody
he turns
on
them in a very vindictive manner. Snake in the grass type.


Yes, you were right...I should have listened to you sooner.


Admission you lost a COMP'd account noted. I'd not have been
able to
say if your account was free or not without you admitting it
but
you're right. you're bitching because you got something for
free for
years and then lost it when greg abused.

Feel free to ramble on, but you pretty much screwed the
poochwith
this one.

Neither one of them admitted anything you ****ing asshole.

Actually, e-mutt, they did. You'll not be able to understand
it, but
they did.

Nope, *they* did not.

So you didn't post "Yes, you were right". Got it. Someone's
forging
you or has access to your account again. You should learn how to
control that.

I said, "yes

Exactly. (And knew you weren't going to stop posting. You sit and
wait for me to post, don't ya).


Perhaps she sits waiting for you to stop lying and tell the truth
just once in your pathetic lifetime.

Here's a good example of which I type:


1) You claimed that you nuked Lady Pilot's account because she
allowed me to post using it and you said that was a clear violation
of the TOS. But, she counters that by posting a document that shows
her account still existed years past your claimed nuke date.

2) Then when you get slapped upside the head that it was seven or
eight years after I allegedly used her account that you nuked it
(conveniently during the Novins trial discovery process perhaps due
to your paranoid state of mind).

3) So then you change your story and say you nuked her account
because I was "trying'' to log on using her password. Which is a
clear admission that her account still existed seven or eight years
after you originally claimed to have nuked it.

So, tell me, Gary, how is it possible to nuke an already nuked
account?

Enquiring minds wish to know.

Excellent! You would have made a great attorney, my dear.

LP




Yes I would have, sweetheart. Did I tell you what the verdict in my
marine sanitation device trial is?

NOT GUILTY! Another victory for good ole Gregory. You should have seen
the FWC officer and the judge working their asses off trying to find me
guilty but they could not. The judge even called for a dictionary to
look up the word "preclusion" after I had already informed the court
that it meant "to prevent or make impossible". This after the state said
they had charged me with violating the wrong paragraph of the statute.
They had charged me with violating chapter (1) on the citation and
wanted to change it to chapter (2). The judge asked me if I wished to
have a continuance. Chapter (2) is for houseboats and the state was
trying to claim my vessel was a houseboat. \

I replied, "Your honor, I am prepared to defend against chapter (2.) I
don't think the state expected that at all. Anyway I proved to the
satisfaction of the court that chapter (2) did not apply to my vessel so
they fell back on chapter(1) anyhow. Then I proved to the courts
satisfaction that my vessel was in full compliance which chapter (1).
So, I set some excellent precedence for other boaters who've been
similarly harassed by ignorant or overzealous officers.

The judge told the state, "I don't like it any more than you do, officer
________, but I'm going to rule not guilty because the way I read it
he's complied with the law."

--
Gregory Hall

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote:
"Lady Pilot" wrote:
Excellent! You would have made a great attorney, my dear.

LP




Yes I would have, sweetheart. Did I tell you what the verdict in my marine
sanitation device trial is?

I thought earlier that you said it was continued...


NOT GUILTY! Another victory for good ole Gregory. You should have seen
the FWC officer and the judge working their asses off trying to find me
guilty but they could not.

I have no doubt about the judge and FWC officer.. Congratulations, my dear!

The judge even called for a dictionary to look up the word "preclusion"
after I had already informed the court that it meant "to prevent or make
impossible".

Reminds me when I sued the state last year. The judge kept asking the state
what the law was...he's only been on the bench for thirty years or so lol

This after the state said they had charged me with violating the wrong
paragraph of the statute. They had charged me with violating chapter (1) on
the citation and wanted to change it to chapter (2). The judge asked me if
I wished to have a continuance. Chapter (2) is for houseboats and the state
was trying to claim my vessel was a houseboat. \

Continuance??? Were you in state or federal court? Maritime law is federal
law, last time I looked. What kind of jurisdiction does the state have?

I replied, "Your honor, I am prepared to defend against chapter (2.) I
don't think the state expected that at all. Anyway I proved to the
satisfaction of the court that chapter (2) did not apply to my vessel so
they fell back on chapter(1) anyhow. Then I proved to the courts
satisfaction that my vessel was in full compliance which chapter (1). So,
I set some excellent precedence for other boaters who've been similarly
harassed by ignorant or overzealous officers.

Awesome, sweetie! I'm going to have to gloat Monday to one of my admirers
at school. He's a good looking dude that just retired from the coast guard.
He's been asking me to go to Starbucks after class for about a month now.


The judge told the state, "I don't like it any more than you do, officer
________, but I'm going to rule not guilty because the way I read it he's
complied with the law."

Bravo! You definitely have bragging rights on this one! I had no doubt
that you wouldn't need my help. ;-)

LP

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
...

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote:
"Lady Pilot" wrote:
Excellent! You would have made a great attorney, my dear.

LP




Yes I would have, sweetheart. Did I tell you what the verdict in my
marine sanitation device trial is?

I thought earlier that you said it was continued...

I was leading the stAUKers by their nose rings again. LOL. It's so much
fun to jerk their chain and watch their snotty noses bleed.

NOT GUILTY! Another victory for good ole Gregory. You should have
seen the FWC officer and the judge working their asses off trying to
find me guilty but they could not.

I have no doubt about the judge and FWC officer.. Congratulations, my
dear!

Thank you, honey!

The judge even called for a dictionary to look up the word
"preclusion" after I had already informed the court that it meant "to
prevent or make impossible".

Reminds me when I sued the state last year. The judge kept asking the
state what the law was...he's only been on the bench for thirty years
or so lol

Another senile liberal, lifetime judge, probably.

This after the state said they had charged me with violating the wrong
paragraph of the statute. They had charged me with violating chapter
(1) on the citation and wanted to change it to chapter (2). The judge
asked me if I wished to have a continuance. Chapter (2) is for
houseboats and the state was trying to claim my vessel was a
houseboat. \

Continuance??? Were you in state or federal court? Maritime law is
federal law, last time I looked. What kind of jurisdiction does the
state have?

In the circuit court, I think. I think that's a state court. I was cited
for violating state statute 327.53(1)
Due to federal law that takes precedence over state law, however, the
state statutes pretty much mirror federal law. I don't think a state law
officer has the authority to write citations for violating federal law.
The Coast Guard can, though. They enforce federal code when they do
safety inspections.

I replied, "Your honor, I am prepared to defend against chapter (2.)
I don't think the state expected that at all. Anyway I proved to the
satisfaction of the court that chapter (2) did not apply to my vessel
so they fell back on chapter(1) anyhow. Then I proved to the courts
satisfaction that my vessel was in full compliance which chapter (1).
So, I set some excellent precedence for other boaters who've been
similarly harassed by ignorant or overzealous officers.

Awesome, sweetie! I'm going to have to gloat Monday to one of my
admirers at school. He's a good looking dude that just retired from
the coast guard. He's been asking me to go to Starbucks after class
for about a month now.

The man obviously has great taste in women. ;-)

--
Gregory Hall




The judge told the state, "I don't like it any more than you do,
officer ________, but I'm going to rule not guilty because the way I
read it he's complied with the law."

Bravo! You definitely have bragging rights on this one! I had no
doubt that you wouldn't need my help. ;-)

LP