On May 8, 11:31*am, hk wrote:
On 5/8/10 11:08 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On May 8, 9:40 am, *wrote:
On 5/8/10 8:52 AM, Loogypicker wrote:

That's because there is no answer, moron.

Hehehe. Sure there is...but apparently not for you.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Okay, try to think about your latest lie, dumb ass. If a person could
just make a phone call, without any identification, and get
information like that, how many times do you think there would be
lawsuits suing the jurisdiction that allowed that to happen. It's
plain stupid for someone to think that that could be done. You lied.
That's the answer.

I would guess the answer is in your own statement up there,
DumFochLoogy. Who says the calls were made without identification? I
didn't say that. Who says the offices of well-known criminal defense
lawyers don't have "connections" with court clerks, magistrates, and
"wants and warrants" desks? I didn't say that. One of your many problems
is that your world of real-life knowledge is...limited, as is your
intellect.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just how the **** do you show proper credentials over the phone,
moron???? BTW, when you first tried this lie, I called the
jurisdiction in question and asked. You are a ****ing liar.