ANOTHER Jewish swindler! Arthur Nadel - investors could be out as much as $350 million.
Alaric II
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune is reporting that investors in a Sarasota-based
hedge fund are likely out $350-million and the manager of the fund is
missing. "Fund principal Arthur G. Nadel, a prominent player in Sarasota's
jewish social and philanthropic circles, disappeared this week. His wife,
Peg, filed a missing person report with law enforcement after finding a
suicide note."
The Nadels were known for their civic activities, serving on boards and
donating money. They donated heavily to Jewish Family & Children's Services
and Girls Inc. all received cash gifts and pledges from the couple in recent
years. "We're very fortunate in that way," said Rose Chapman, president of
Jewish Family & Children's Services. Moody was co-chair of the organization'
s capital campaign.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090117/ts_nm/us_nadel_2
MIAMI (Reuters) - A Florida money manager is missing and police have opened
an investigation into the possible disappearance of "hundreds of millions"
of dollars, authorities said on Friday.
Police are searching for Arthur Nadel, 75, a prominent Sarasota
philanthropist and fund manager who was reported missing by his family on
Wednesday.
Sarasota police are investigating complaints from at least five investors in
Nadel's funds, run from a management office in Sarasota, that their money
has disappeared. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported investors could be out
as much as $350 million.
Matthias Kern
Another braindeath crossposter read to lift off for direct flight to
alt.drunken.bastards
>
--
last_per...@yahoo.com
> "Alaric II" <czar93...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> Another braindeath crossposter read to lift off for direct flight to
> alt.drunken.bastards
So, where do you usually reek, alt.zionazi.turds?
L Alpert
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e94930dc-85e3-432f...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
------
Thought you would never ask....
soc.superior.humans.jews
last_per...@yahoo.com
> <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
We know. I mean, never able to make a country on their own,
and those hebrew athletes! Absolute unstoppable forces
of physical superiority!! Chosen by God too. Hell yeah
I see what you mean.
L Alpert
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52810099-4d66-4358...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-----
Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
last_per...@yahoo.com
> <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52810099-4d66-4358...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 3:53 pm, "L Alpert" <alpe...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e94930dc-85e3-432f...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 17, 2:50 pm, Matthias Kern <lotharwed...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > > "Alaric II" <czar93...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > > Another braindeath crossposter read to lift off for direct flight to
> > > alt.drunken.bastards
>
> > So, where do you usually reek, alt.zionazi.turds?
> > ------
> > Thought you would never ask....
>
> > soc.superior.humans.jews
>
> We know. I mean, never able to make a country on their own,
> and those hebrew athletes! Absolute unstoppable forces
> of physical superiority!! Chosen by God too. Hell yeah
> I see what you mean.
> -----
>
> Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
So I take it you grudgingly agree..
Ben Cramer
"L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yzrcl.10565$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Oxymorons abound, fatso.
>
>
>
L Alpert
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4295033-e1e2-40e6...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
------
FFS, being a dim bulb is quite an achievement for you.
L Alpert
"Ben Cramer" <ben'sal...@around.com> wrote in message
news:jpadnag6iohpP-_U...@giganews.com...
Well, if it isn't the sheep fornicating drug addict. You would have nothing
to continually whine about if what I state were not true.
>
>>
>>
>>
>
Ben Cramer
>
> "Ben Cramer" <ben'sal...@around.com> wrote in message
> news:jpadnag6iohpP-_U...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:yzrcl.10565$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e94930dc-85e3-432f...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 17, 2:50 pm, Matthias Kern <lotharwed...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>> "Alaric II" <czar93...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another braindeath crossposter read to lift off for direct flight to
>>>> alt.drunken.bastards
>>>
>>> So, where do you usually reek, alt.zionazi.turds?
>>> ------
>>> Thought you would never ask....
>>>
>>> soc.superior.humans.jews
>>
>> Oxymorons abound, fatso.
>>
>>
>
> Well, if it isn't the sheep fornicating drug addict.
Learn to follow the thread, fatso. 'Tis I, Cramer, to whom you respond, not
the black cunt from Papua New Zealand.
fla...@verizon.net
SLAMDUNK!!!
It's amazing how just incredibly stupid these losers are &
yet still manage to breathe, much less post to Usenet...
Susan
Eli Grubman
>
>On 17-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:52810099-4d66-4358...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 17, 3:53 pm, "L Alpert" <alpe...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:e94930dc-85e3-432f...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 17, 2:50 pm, Matthias Kern <lotharwed...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Alaric II" <czar93...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Another braindeath crossposter read to lift off for direct flight to
>> > > alt.drunken.bastards
>> >
>> > So, where do you usually reek, alt.zionazi.turds?
>> > ------
>> > Thought you would never ask....
>> >
>> > soc.superior.humans.jews
>>
>> We know. I mean, never able to make a country on their own,
>> and those hebrew athletes! Absolute unstoppable forces
>> of physical superiority!! Chosen by God too. Hell yeah
>> I see what you mean.
>> -----
>>
>> Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
>
>SLAMDUNK!!!
Isn't/isn;t that what Gary shouts out on Friday night when he
sodomises you?
>It's amazing how just (sic) incredibly stupid these losers are &
>yet still manage to breathe, much less post to Usenet...
>
>Susan
It's/it;s amazing how a th*ck Ir*sh cunt can confuse the order of
words in a sentence and instead of admitting to dyslexia, claim
they're/they;re typos.
Eli
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:O1zcl.409$aI1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> On 17-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:52810099-4d66-4358...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 17, 3:53 pm, "L Alpert" <alpe...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:e94930dc-85e3-432f...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 17, 2:50 pm, Matthias Kern <lotharwed...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Alaric II" <czar93...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Another braindeath crossposter read to lift off for direct flight to
>> > > alt.drunken.bastards
>> >
>> > So, where do you usually reek, alt.zionazi.turds?
>> > ------
>> > Thought you would never ask....
>> >
>> > soc.superior.humans.jews
>>
>> We know. I mean, never able to make a country on their own,
>> and those hebrew athletes! Absolute unstoppable forces
>> of physical superiority!! Chosen by God too. Hell yeah
>> I see what you mean.
>> -----
>>
>> Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
>
> SLAMDUNK!!!
How so, suzie babes. It's fat alpert who is doing all the whining. Now
you've joined him.
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
LOL! Grabmen, the sexual cripple, showing what the matter is with him!
Doctor Panta
--
Replying to Grabmen's posts is as recreational as stomping cockroaches.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
<g>
Me thinks my comment struck a nerve in the Muttface, yes?
Nothing like hard facts in bringing the 'SLAMDUNK!!!' diversion
from the Muttface. :)
Ben Cramer
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed291183-3479-4d2c...@q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Suzie babes doesn't have a lot of options when it comes to response. Her
vocabulary consists of only 40 words.
L Alpert
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:O1zcl.409$aI1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
Amazing how any idiot can get connected.
L Alpert
39 of which you cannot fathom.
>
>
fla...@verizon.net
On 19-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
> >>
> >> > SLAMDUNK!!!
> >>
> >> How so, suzie babes. It's fat alpert who is doing all the whining. Now
> >> you've joined him.
> >
What a maroon the sexist illiterate liar is.
> > <g>
> >>Me thinks my comment struck a nerve in the Muttface, yes?
He would think that - being the actual Muttface, of coursae.
> >>Nothing like hard facts in bringing the 'SLAMDUNK!!!' diversion
> >>from the Muttface. :)
> >
How stupid does he have to be to miss that the hard facts
are hitting HIM in his muttface - or anal orifice? (The same
thing, judging from his posts) Oh, it's probably just the
usual bigot denial.
> > Suzie babes doesn't have a lot of options when it comes to response. Her
> > vocabulary consists of only 40 words.
> >
And the sexist liar just keeps projecting - as well as
forgetting that his repetitive drivel needs nothing new
to point it out as such.
>
> 39 of which you cannot fathom.
And none of which he is entitled, either intellectually
or morally, to use himself.
Susan
Eli Grubman
>
>On 19-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
>> >>
>> >> > SLAMDUNK!!!
>> >>
>> >> How so, suzie babes. It's fat alpert who is doing all the whining. Now
>> >> you've joined him.
>> >
>What a maroon the sexist illiterate liar is.
What a th*ck Ir*sh cuntr the th*ck Ir*sh cunt is.
And KILLFILE AVOIDANCE noted.
<Ir*sh banshee screeching b'rissed>
Eli
Ben Cramer
I will admit to having some difficulty with much of her blather - yes.
Check this out.
Can you make head or tails from it?
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JSYcl.554$Aw2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Extremely wull[sic]-put.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JPYcl.552$Aw2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> This is coimpletely[sic] untrue, & the usual response from thoise[sic] who
> are justly
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UjYcl.539$Aw2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> First let's not te[sic] tht[sic] it wa[sic] hamas[sic] who broke the truce
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:U3ycl.370$aI1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Not that it will do nearly as much good as it should - but I gree[sic] (of
> course).
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iGE6l.2162$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Whenthey[sic] learn to stop attacking people for their own faults.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QrB6l.2134$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Amazing how he canagree[sic] with you & yet oretend[sic] he's not.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UFw6l.2057$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Then I obviously red[sic] something else, because I know he
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8vw6l.2046$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> & call the immigrants invasders[sic] when we want to kill them"?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:z_v6l.2024$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Yes, tha[sic] tis[sic] a surprise to those of us who can count. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uAh6l.1908$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Except in the arts[sic] where it *doesn't*.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%Eh6l.1912$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Only inhis[sic] dreams - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:C186l.1791$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Interesting imagery - nort[sic] only a lie, but very telling *about this
pathetic
> loser*!!!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:EDR5l.1595$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Kicks into overdrive when Israel is forced to defend itself more
> stroingly[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YKU3l.565$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Not wuite[sic]. If they wasn't[sic] to be *observant* Jews, they do.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cK30l.1201$7I6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> See what I mean about themprojecting[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xr3%k.453$c35...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> What the stupid bigot either ignores or cannpot[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YB3%k.462$c35...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> a) the TOTAL lack of any sortof[sic] refutation
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jJcZk.2415$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Like[sic] the white people who get cickle[sic] cell anemia[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6LcZk.2416$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The funniest thing is that none of this[sic] posts were proof of
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iXnZk.2464$QX3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Of course he absolutely qwas[sic] not, but, what's reality
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XTnZk.2555$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>Yes, his predlicition[sic]*is* towards males - And you know that, being
>th[sic] hypocrite he is, he does not.
> Or that cow[sic] that he says would never even notice it if he raped it.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XEgZk.2375$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>...as a cofnessional[sic]
> The other words being upplied[sic] by "Jason P" - unless
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bwZYk.2246$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Yes, I've seen other people refuse tp[sic] use killfiles
> because it gets in the way of their kicking carapace[sic]
>Susan.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:GlZYk.2238$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> He is telling the world, omce[sic] again,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SyKYk.2105$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> And yet AGAIN proving my[sic] correct about the...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wdnYk.1859$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> See what I mean about bigots having to projectt[sic] heir[sic] ...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SinYk.1862$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Whatmakes[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JfnYk.1861$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Says KKKramwer[sic] the pvoen[sic] liar.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dcnYk.1857$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> He has no women in his life - that's why he uses that sort of
> anguage[sic]. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ylAXk.1441$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Sure. But the point is that it was supposed to be EEOC
> as a emedy[jsic], & then AA only as a punitive measure to...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eyzXk.1412$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> This is a backward way of looking at it.
> If there are extant conditions that have their
> roots in salvery[sic]...
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:r6AXk.1432$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I wouldn't put it past Irving to lie about it, tho'[sic], to
> bolater[sic] his lies w/those[sic] who are already prepared
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lmUWk.848$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Exceot[sic] that she's been told, wevery[sic] time she posts
> the lie, that "chosen" in this instance does now
> mean what *she* weants[sic] it to mean.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:71iWk.434$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> Cramer askled[sic]: "Why do you ignore answering the question asked of
>more specifically, why does he project his own sex-life/fantasies onto
>o[sic]
> thers[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4GqWk.526$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> LIke[sic] every other thing he posts.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LOhWk.424$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> I think you win - this is the lleast[sic] coherent I have ever seen
> the stupid little sexist liar.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:N1GVk.77$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Wow - and that's not even taking into consideration ewveryone[sic] else he
> is....
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g%FVk.76$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I remember spicefically[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BmcVk.2548$mi4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> And projectionary[sic] *is* am[sic] accepted word - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:VgcVk.2545$mi4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> That's just the tip of the iceberg (Goldberg, what's the differnce[sic]?).
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3tYUk.1522$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> No, Israel has already had thatdone[sic] to them - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:w49Uk.1047$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> However, it *is* nice of you to admit that it is, indeed, you hwo[sic]
> has anal sex, & certainly not me.
> &[sic] it's even nicer of you to admit that you definitely aren't human,
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2cSQk.3450$Jv2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Thsi[sic] is not turning feminism[sic] upside down.
> Feminism has nevr[sic] been "women over men at all costs".
> Maybe for those who only think in terms of "women first,
> no matter what type[sic] of women." As I said, big deal.
> Feninists[sic] kept McCain out of the White House.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k%RQk.3443$Jv2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> other incorrect hings[sic]. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Zq6Qk.3059$225....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> His problem is that he doesn't, except for ebing[sic] one.
> You went after his boyfriend, so now you;re[sic] in trouble.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BvHPk.2527$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> you're coming up w/a[sic] truly pathetic dodge to avpid[sic] having
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m2vPk.2411$225....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Nothing. But bigots *do* project their flaws ionto[sic] others.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6iQNk.1072$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I thought it was more that "Ibrahim the Hamasnik" is an idiot
> because he was broght[sic] up on insane propaganda
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OkwOk.1548$Jv2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I knew her arrogance was of insane propoertions[sic], but
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%5pMk.80$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> What *sholuld*[sic] have been this sort of fight has been used
> by those w/a[sic] specifically religious/fanatical agenda.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%5pMk.80$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> What *sholuld*[sic have been this sort of fight has been used
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ki2Kk.1710$Rx2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>Even w/those os[sic] uf[sic] who aren't married.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wLNJk.1497$Rx2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> An[sic] yet you still refuse to avail yourself of the help you
> admitted[sic] you so desperate[sic] need, boy. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xNyJk.1422$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Oh, I definitely smell conspiracy.
> I hav[sic] to believe that - if it's not true, I means that we're
> all just hat[sic] much dumber in this country, because look
> at our "leaders" (imagined/putative/general)
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lRyJk.1424$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Big sur[rise[sic].[sic] there!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_nPIk.793$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Why should gund[sic] be any differdnt[sic] than any other topic they
> address?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JHxHk.1789$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> No doubt - yo[sic] ucan[sic] always tell the faults of a bigot by what
> Susan
fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:outGk.1131$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Anonymous cowards would be the wfirst[sic] to kn-w[sic] -[sic] & the
>Susan.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2kVDk.621$kI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Oh, yo[sic] uare[sic] such a liar - you wouldn't know one end of a sewing
> you show no evidence of having graducated[sic] from *anything*, &
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:oTcDk.99$Dk4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Yeah, how *dare* you make him feel even *that much* MMALLER[sic]!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wn4Dk.1575$Jw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Hmm, my problem w/that[sic] analysis is that I a[sic] convinced that
> it's more a question of "You;ve[sic] squandered the goodwill of
> our allies over Iraq when we really needed it now, ao[sic] now we
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IADCk.1229$Jw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> It'snosurprisethat[sic] the Rev Pedo would repeat this lie.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CD1Ck.887$MN3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Nice to know that BenZonah's being honest about himself,
> even if he - as I have always stated - ahas[sic] to pretend to be s[sic]
> omeone[sic] else to do it.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cYZBk.841$MN3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> *had* wrotten[sic] that thing is in the same league as his hero.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6WZBk.840$MN3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Susan O'Flaherty" is calling hiseslf[sic] would have made it
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gb0jko$h63$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> Thnaks[sic] for the sanity check.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:0qryk.864$Dj1.826@trnddc02...
> Whiuch[sic] one? Is her own pastor a whack-job, or just the visiting one?
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:kcryk.1043$393.339@trnddc05...
> (But it's nice to see how even the littest[sic] of truths sends you over
> the
> edge.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ga61ih$h0h$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> Well, unless youw[sic] ant[sic] to set up the US government as an arbiter
> of religion.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ga88ih$ucs$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> So, IOW, you colnd;t[sic] find your own version of this in the regular
> dictionary[sic],
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sJCxk.81$l25...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I wouldn't be so quick to claim this woman as an ideal[sic],
> & knockling[sic] women's studies shows a very narrow mind.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:hUIxk.893$sq3.531@trnddc07...
> Translation: you are ahypocrite[sic] who cannot
> Realizing your problem is the firststep[sic] to recovery: good on ya!
> I am partisan to the turth[sic] which you are not.
> I agree. But you have provided nothing, & made serious & visious[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:18Kwk.721$sq3.18@trnddc07...
> Yes, that is the exact situation, so I think some cpomassion[sic] is in
> oder[sic].
> Suasn[sic]
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:BB9wk.665$393.365@trnddc05...
> See what I mean about themprojecting?[sic] Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Ea3vk.332$393.125@trnddc05...
> It's just as intelligent as replying to his auck[sic] puppet's sock
> puppet. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:I9Rtk.1125$w51.488@trnddc01...
> Imagine him thinking (& I use the word simply for then[sic] entertainment
> value) that I would be bothered[sic] by the fact that the 2 of them are
> made
> for each other!
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:pvptk.1020$w51.946@trnddc01...
> Not w/the[sic] new version.
> I forget what all the';ve[sic] ditched, but it's *lame*!
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:0Gctk.1040$Ro1.813@trnddc04...
> Obama, himself, has done that. He's flip-flpped[sic] on
> a number of key Dmeocratic[sic] positions - I'm quite
> disgusted w/him.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:oKssk.710$UX.378@trnddc03...
> Hey, moron, still thinking you can scramble from your stupid self-exposure
> whwen[sic] you signed you[sic] OTHER account w/my[sic] name?
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:6Xosk.727$Ro1.350@trnddc04...
> I wonder if KKKramer thinks he's feeling[sic] anyone other than himself?
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:wzOpk.80$482.50@trnddc06...
> but nothing about my husband, who doe[sic] snot[sic] post to Usenet.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:vzIok.731$EL2.30@trnddc01...
> This wa[sic] sperfectly[sic] correct English, but, naturally, KKKramer
> oculdn't[sic]
> grasp that.
> so how smart ciuld[sic] he actually be?
<fla...@verizon.net>
>I know you are trying to asy (sic) that homosexuals demanding to
>be married infringes on yyour (sic) rights to feel the way you want.
>So, IOW, you shouldn't be allowed to tell people they can;t (sic) be
>married
>for the same reason you shouldn't be allowed to will-nilly (sic) increase
>you (sic) yard
>& now you;re (sic) just discussing concepots (sic) - in fact, rights -
>instead of
>physical proporety (sic).
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:9Tsok.860$xv.492@trnddc02...
> But at leats[sic] his projectionism is istact[sic].
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ZVCmk.382$_H1.192@trnddc05...
> And the sky is purple with greev stripes!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:yxKlk.191$T91.135@trnddc04...
> It does take a great deal of guts to admit that he can't read
> Enflish[sic] - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:1Kvkk.775$wS4.465@trnddc03...
> at[sic] al are liars, much like you. The further you go into the
> article, the more you find out how big of liars they are.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:0Wulk.178$xv.172@trnddc02...
> Nah - he'd thump in other eays[sic]... Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:_ERjk.397$wS4.303@trnddc03...
> And heonly[sic] mentioned it because of how much monwey[sic] they gave
> him.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:x0Njk.358$wS4.337@trnddc03...
> That's the bigopt[sic] "mentality" all over.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:M8vjk.292$aA5.54@trnddc05...
> "conspiracy/covre-up[sic]"? Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:14ljk.228$iM5.0@trnddc07...
> & yet he still has the stypical[sic] arrogance of the insanely
> Watch - a torrent of filth & lies will now spew forth from his
> maw - but not one word of actual refuation[sic].
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:t1ljk.224$iM5.139@trnddc07...
> Nice to see that he's still reduced to falsely[sic] copying everything I
> say.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Vrnjk.348$rb5.274@trnddc04...
> It's amazing how atupid[sic] some people are. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:0onjk.346$rb5.294@trnddc04...
Mes[sic] at decreasingly relevant[sic] times only proves that you
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Klvjk.299$aA5.148@trnddc05...
> Again - no issue; repeating a lie doe[sic] snot[sic] make it so.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:dfajk.310$rb5.66@trnddc04...
> Yes - I am amazed thatanyone[sic] could even begin to pretend that it's
> Muslims.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:8kTik.149$rb5.147@trnddc04...
> Se[sic] ewhat[sic] I mean about them lying?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g6cjaj$spq$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> Be careful - his mead[sic] might explode.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> Exceot[sic], of course, that Americans killed Americans.
fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:lPqik.24$aA5.21@trnddc05...
> Exceot[sic] for his uncanny ability to project his obvious flaws onto you.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:TFbhk.294$oU.48@trnddc07...
> Wow, not only do you styart[sic] from a weakly grasped...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:7Jbhk.296$oU.158@trnddc07...
> The way you proclaim that 'hetersexual[sic] is good."
> Your point - ither[sic] than the one between your ears...?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> I never thought of it that way - mostly because[sic] it's too disgusting
> to
> comtemplate[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:t8Bck.840$4a3.1@trnddc04...
> What a waste of propolasm[sic] they are... Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:BmY9k.144$4a3.99@trnddc04...
> And if children didn;t[sic] like pruple[sic] dinosaurs, there would be no
> barney.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zaM3k.40065$MF3.17152@trnddc06...
> What's your escuse[sic] for not being able to do the same?
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:%wi2k.2027$bs3.504@trnddc07...
> and that it means just wha[sic] tthey[sic] pretend it does..
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:uGi2k.2119$bs3.337@trnddc07...
> Only slightly more remarkable when he uses it against
> any og[sic] the guys he tries to call that.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> Oh, Prozac wold[sic] be useless on him; I vote "cyanide."
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Nj_0k.2990$b_.1835@trnddc02...
> Of course - we'v[sic] eknown[sic] that since you reared your empty head
> w/yet another
> forgery.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g1i08n$g3t$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> So when are you going to take your own asvice[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g12ohh$bh6$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In factm[sid] it's the exact opposite thereof.
> If you don;t[sic] understand[sic], you argue!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QM5Zj.16923$4K5.11034@trnddc03...
> Guess I'll stop beliving[sic] in historical facts....
> You lie, & the insanely stupid "wuote"[sic] you invented only
> exascerbates[sic] that
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:yAiYj.1894$dh.1285@trnddc05...
> one of which is that they have been living alie[sic] & prmoting[sic] it
> for
> generations.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bFQXj.6102$IK5.3257@trnddc04...
> Les[sic] times than the truw[sic] tw@t needs to be told about punctuation.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:kTtUj.24447$qW.7624@trnddc06...
> See what I mean about [bvigots] projecting?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:1UISj.21$Fv.11@trnddc03...
> On 2-May-2008, Bob Abendroth <RWAbe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Your denial is very said[sic].
> Get help.
> Susan
><fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:uZISj.27$Fv.22@trnddc03...
> On 2-May-2008, "dsha...@hotmail.com" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> except to publicly/officially opint[sic] out that the mess is all their
> fault.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:jV3Oj.23$pn4.13@trnddc03...
> What the true tw@t totally misses is that it doesn't take much
> to know moew[sic] than the average bigot about *ANYTHING*.
> I noticed that he snipped all the facts you broght[sic] to the table.
> Even if you had just Googled them &thrown them in, you
> already howed[sic] more knowledge than he'll ever get on it, or
> any other subject.
>Susan
<flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:480d66c5....@news.tiscali.co.uk...
>Please note that, as always, tiscali - plainly posted here in
>KKKramer's reply - is not verizon, & tus (sic) this is an obvious -
>patheticly (sic) obvious! - forgery.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:WoRPj.14823$Zk5.9162@trnddc05...
> I said nothing of the sort. It's posted in sull[sic], above,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> The phony rev pedo wil[sic] lno[sic] neither.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UXRNj.11943$Ho5.10149@trnddc01...
> Being reviled by the dishonorable creting[sic] is meaningless to me,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IKUNj.25252$6w3.24915@trnddc07...
> Yes, he's definitely lying: the statistics tell the opposite story, & that
> enfuriates[sic] him. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk5jp$rbu$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> so you admit that you ddge[sic] giving an answer because you
> don't like the fact that our president is involved w/the[sic]
> oiligrachy[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> At any rate, it was the bag-holding for Nazi murderers
> that makes some of us think so. Exactly in the way
> that a bank robber's bag-holder is indicated[sic] in his crime.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:FZYKj.7252$BT1.4974@trnddc04...
> It's nice when they expose themselves as mentally incompetent[sic] &
> morally
> deficient[sic].
> Pot[sic] left intact - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf76d$jvt$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> This is illogical, because peole[sic], even if they "act unthinkingly"
> really do have *some* thought before they act.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf08e$c97$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> As Ithought[sic] I said before, I know it doesn't happen because
> the PLO, et al, have used the absence of rape to try to pretend
> the IDF is full of homosexuals.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flhtk2$7bh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> The latter is truem[sic], the former is not.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk19k$m0a$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Ye,s[sic] it's called "Torah."
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk5jp$rbu$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> so you admit that you ddge[sic] giving an answer because you
> don't like the fact that our president is involved w/the oiligrachy[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fkai7g$edt$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> The Jewish business owners I knew always out[sic] up generic
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk99be$vke$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Absolutely no problem whatoever[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9bb1$2ns$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Exceptr[sic] that they had warnings - and if the didn;t[sic] feel they
> were wanrings[sic],
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9b00$1tu$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
& mn[sic] can;t[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9btm$2tc$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Harsdly[sic] a rescue,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9966$vfd$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> That's a compliment I nay[sic] have to decline
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk99qp$n8$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> & it might bebetter[sic] to learn tha[sic] "positive" does not mean
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf76d$jvt$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> This is illogical, because peole[sic], even if they "act unthinkingly"
> really do have *some* thought before they act. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf08e$c97$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> As I thought[sic] I said before, I know it doesn't happen because
> the PLO, et al, have used the absence of rape to try to pretend
> the IDF is full of homosexuals.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flhtk2$7bh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> The latter is truem]sic], the former is not.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk19k$m0a$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Ye,s[sic] it's called "Torah."
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:cVggj.831$sH.664@trnddc04...
> Yes & no.
> Itwould[sic] be understandable, because it's *instinctual*
> to save your own children first - or shold[sic] be.
> Of course they would hate you, but then, ask them if
> they would have saved their own child if theycould[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Aeigj.5923$Xo1.1199@trnddc06...
> You are such a STUPID little liar!
> I could even tell you where/how you tripped up, but
> it's much more[sic] fun to watch you flounder more!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:qoigj.5930$Xo1.3583@trnddc06...
> Keep your misisonizing[sic] to yourself, bigot, & you won't
> need to see anything that upsets you.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4782fa21...@news.tiscali.co.uk...
> The State of Colorado should of[sic] hanged you *years* ago.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:LP6hj.3718$Z61.1345@trnddc07...
> Tilly, he knows all abot[sic] his suck puppet master - but
> you also know how fairly insane he is in his denial.
>> We were subjected to his views on people
>> who'love'animals[sic] and animals who 'love' people including how animals
>> can
>> consent to having sex with humans.
> Susan
On Jan 10, 4:18 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> By decree, however, Charles is Mountbatten, if not Andrew[sic].
> She had made theoriginal[sic] announcement about "Windsor"
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:PW6hj.3724$Z61.2599@trnddc07...
> Thenlying[sic] about it must actually *be* terrorism, because no one said
> anything about murder.
> It was clearly spelled out as execution for crimes that had been
> *ascertained*[sic].
> Only if you're grasoing[sic] at straws because you;ve[sic] got *nothing*.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:6_6hj.3726$Z61.374@trnddc07...
>Notice his pretense[sic] that if he ignores
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:F1vhj.11550$qV.3731@trnddc03...
> (Okay, & KKKramer also has to such[sic] on whatever the
> phony rev is sticking out, but that's as[sic] given, too)
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:nFvhj.7333$sH.6375@trnddc04...
> The "Old Testament" is purely[sic] Xian[sic].
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:t5Ojj.154939$Ue3.123652@trnddc07...
> When I sued[sic] OE, it didn't foul things up at all.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bbWjj.36372$Zo3.10136@trnddc02...
> Ah, thanks explains a lot - thanks.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NbWjj.41052$UX2.26156@trnddc08...
> But he does seem to be somewhat reactionary[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:5i9kj.66$k15.31@trnddc06...
> He's amde[sic] specific enough remarks, this posrt[sic] included - to
> expose himself, yet again, as a liar.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6QTkj.13334$9t4.12518@trnddc08...
> To get the record strat[sic], anyone who calls a Nazi exactly what he is
> gets
> called the opposite gender.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8yTkj.15871$LN4.11516@trnddc07...
> Yeah, boy, just keep laughing, all the way to that cardboard
> box on the street where your iganorance[sic] will take you
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:BXxlj.4714$hk4.2828@trnddc03...
>I always wondered exactly[sic] *what* lies Robert Fisk told - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:o5cnj.1456$ZO5.124@trnddc03...
> That exist loser certainly does.[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bQbnj.1448$ZO5.1135@trnddc03...
> I deny emphatically the false charge[sic] against Israel,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:rCbnj.1443$ZO5.1238@trnddc03...
> And yet when Israel wants to evict thm[sic], the bigots whine a
> bout[sic] that, too.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:yVdpj.45669$K%.23283@trnddc04...
> William[sic], the phopny[sic] rev isnot[sic] voting for Hillary.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:lI4rj.302$x%3.98@trnddc06...
> He's certainly got a batter[sic] chance w/a camel than w/me.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4JPrj.2449$ip3.817@trnddc07...
> No, you were just lying to suit your own purposes[sic], the way you always
> do.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:QuJrj.3029$qV2.2476@trnddc04...
> Watson, Seredin & Mirelle are successively insane haters but
> you have already guessed that from the posts of mos[SIC] tof[SIC] them.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k7Ouj.11424$N95.11066@trnddc03...
> He knows wha tthey are - he's just - wait for it! - Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SAFuj.45395$we5.11741@trnddc02...
> I have to winder[sic] what possible appeal this lie could have for him?
> Other than arrogance, & the pretense[sic] that he actually knows
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:uj3vj.5666$kD3.4819@trnddc08...
> Wow, I have to hand it to her - I never thught[sic] for one
> minute she would ever be so honest about herself.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:12qyj.13270$ES.3640@trnddc05...
> Well, you;re[sic] either a bigge[sic] rliar[sic] than I thought or
> illietare[sic].
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:%yAyj.7904$li.1698@trnddc06...
> In the sense thattheyare[sic] all Muslim, of course.
> That's what he ment[sic] by the "Arab/Muslim" phrase.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3tAyj.7902$li.4505@trnddc06...
> Directl[sic] as per the header:
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:jw3zj.5760$dB.2053@trnddc01...
> Yes, bigots prove who they really hate by insisting that
> pnly[sic] Israel swallow what no other country would. Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:0lNzj.11235$C1.124@trnddc07...
> Wow - it really ISA[sic] true that a stopped clock is right twice a day!
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:H9QAj.2307$HA3.185@trnddc02...
> As far as a cite goes, I have been looking, & obviously using the
> wrong esrach[sic] perameters[sic], because this is all that I've been able
> to
> come up with, & it's not what I remember:
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:NtQAj.2316$HA3.1977@trnddc02...
> Of course this is a lie.
> It's those who *lie* about Israel & Jews, like you justdid[sic].
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:f_eGj.3662$Qv5.3631@trnddc03...
> Please - he's been doing THAT for YAERS[sic]!!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3I32k.21810$jX.13082@trnddc04...
> Whatm[sic] did the Rev pedo fail to come visit?
>Susan
>>
>>
>
>
>
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Odddl.848$aI1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> On 19-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Then what the fuck are you whining about, ninny?
>> >>
>> >> > SLAMDUNK!!!
>> >>
>> >> How so, suzie babes. It's fat alpert who is doing all the whining. Now
>> >> you've joined him.
>> >
> What a maroon the sexist illiterate liar is.
Oh dear. More illiteracy and dyslexic from the stupid, neurotic, whining,
dishonest, thick Irish cunt.
Check this out, suzie babes.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JSYcl.554$Aw2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Extremely wull[sic]-put.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JPYcl.552$Aw2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> This is coimpletely[sic] untrue, & the usual response from thoise[sic] who
> are justly
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UjYcl.539$Aw2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> First let's not te[sic] tht[sic] it wa[sic] hamas[sic] who broke the truce
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:U3ycl.370$aI1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Not that it will do nearly as much good as it should - but I gree[sic] (of
> course).
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iGE6l.2162$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Whenthey[sic] learn to stop attacking people for their own faults.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QrB6l.2134$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Amazing how he canagree[sic] with you & yet oretend[sic] he's not.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UFw6l.2057$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Then I obviously red[sic] something else, because I know he
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8vw6l.2046$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> & call the immigrants invasders[sic] when we want to kill them"?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:z_v6l.2024$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Yes, tha[sic] tis[sic] a surprise to those of us who can count.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uAh6l.1908$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Except in the arts[sic] where it *doesn't*.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%Eh6l.1912$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Only inhis[sic] dreams -
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:C186l.1791$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Interesting imagery - nort[sic] only a lie, but very telling *about this
pathetic
> loser*!!!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:EDR5l.1595$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Kicks into overdrive when Israel is forced to defend itself more
> stroingly[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YKU3l.565$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Not wuite[sic]. If they wasn't[sic] to be *observant* Jews, they do.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cK30l.1201$7I6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> See what I mean about themprojecting[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xr3%k.453$c35...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> What the stupid bigot either ignores or cannpot[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YB3%k.462$c35...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> a) the TOTAL lack of any sortof[sic] refutation
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jJcZk.2415$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Like[sic] the white people who get cickle[sic] cell anemia[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6LcZk.2416$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The funniest thing is that none of this[sic] posts were proof of
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iXnZk.2464$QX3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Of course he absolutely qwas[sic] not, but, what's reality
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XTnZk.2555$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>Yes, his predlicition[sic]*is* towards males -
> And you know that, being th[sic] hypocrite he is, he does not.
> Or that cow[sic] that he says would never even notice it if he raped it.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XEgZk.2375$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>...as a cofnessional[sic]
> The other words being upplied[sic] by "Jason P" - unless
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bwZYk.2246$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Yes, I've seen other people refuse tp[sic] use killfiles
> because it gets in the way of their kicking carapace[sic]
>Susan.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:GlZYk.2238$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> He is telling the world, omce[sic] again,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SyKYk.2105$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> And yet AGAIN proving my[sic] correct about the...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wdnYk.1859$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> See what I mean about bigots having to projectt[sic] heir[sic] ...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SinYk.1862$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Whatmakes[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JfnYk.1861$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Says KKKramwer[sic] the pvoen[sic] liar.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dcnYk.1857$us6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> He has no women in his life - that's why he uses that sort of
> anguage[sic].
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ylAXk.1441$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Sure. But the point is that it was supposed to be EEOC
> as a emedy[jsic], & then AA only as a punitive measure to...
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eyzXk.1412$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> This is a backward way of looking at it.
> If there are extant conditions that have their
> roots in salvery[sic]...
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:r6AXk.1432$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I wouldn't put it past Irving to lie about it, tho'[sic], to
> bolater[sic] his lies w/those[sic] who are already prepared
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lmUWk.848$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Exceot[sic] that she's been told, wevery[sic] time she posts
> the lie, that "chosen" in this instance does now
> mean what *she* weants[sic] it to mean.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:71iWk.434$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> Cramer askled[sic]: "Why do you ignore answering the question asked of
>more specifically, why does he project his own sex-life/fantasies onto
>o[sic]
> thers[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4GqWk.526$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> LIke[sic] every other thing he posts.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LOhWk.424$QX3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> I think you win - this is the lleast[sic] coherent I have ever seen
> the stupid little sexist liar.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:N1GVk.77$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Wow - and that's not even taking into consideration ewveryone[sic] else he
> is....
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g%FVk.76$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I remember spicefically[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BmcVk.2548$mi4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> And projectionary[sic] *is* am[sic] accepted word -
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:VgcVk.2545$mi4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> That's just the tip of the iceberg (Goldberg, what's the differnce[sic]?).
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3tYUk.1522$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> No, Israel has already had thatdone[sic] to them -
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:w49Uk.1047$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> However, it *is* nice of you to admit that it is, indeed, you hwo[sic]
> has anal sex, & certainly not me.
> &[sic] it's even nicer of you to admit that you definitely aren't human,
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2cSQk.3450$Jv2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Thsi[sic] is not turning feminism[sic] upside down.
> Feminism has nevr[sic] been "women over men at all costs".
> Maybe for those who only think in terms of "women first,
> no matter what type[sic] of women." As I said, big deal.
> Feninists[sic] kept McCain out of the White House.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k%RQk.3443$Jv2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> other incorrect hings[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Zq6Qk.3059$225....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> His problem is that he doesn't, except for ebing[sic] one.
> You went after his boyfriend, so now you;re[sic] in trouble.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BvHPk.2527$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> you're coming up w/a[sic] truly pathetic dodge to avpid[sic] having
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m2vPk.2411$225....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Nothing. But bigots *do* project their flaws ionto[sic] others.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6iQNk.1072$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I thought it was more that "Ibrahim the Hamasnik" is an idiot
> because he was broght[sic] up on insane propaganda
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OkwOk.1548$Jv2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I knew her arrogance was of insane propoertions[sic], but
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%5pMk.80$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> What *sholuld*[sic] have been this sort of fight has been used
> by those w/a[sic] specifically religious/fanatical agenda.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%5pMk.80$Jv2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> What *sholuld*[sic have been this sort of fight has been used
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ki2Kk.1710$Rx2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>Even w/those os[sic] uf[sic] who aren't married.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wLNJk.1497$Rx2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> An[sic] yet you still refuse to avail yourself of the help you
> admitted[sic] you so desperate[sic] need, boy.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xNyJk.1422$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Oh, I definitely smell conspiracy.
> I hav[sic] to believe that - if it's not true, I means that we're
> all just hat[sic] much dumber in this country, because look
> at our "leaders" (imagined/putative/general)
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lRyJk.1424$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Big sur[rise[sic].[sic] there!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_nPIk.793$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Why should gund[sic] be any differdnt[sic] than any other topic they
> address?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JHxHk.1789$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> No doubt - yo[sic] ucan[sic] always tell the faults of a bigot by what
> Susan
fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:outGk.1131$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Anonymous cowards would be the wfirst[sic] to kn-w[sic] -[sic] & the
>Susan.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2kVDk.621$kI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Oh, yo[sic] uare[sic] such a liar - you wouldn't know one end of a sewing
> you show no evidence of having graducated[sic] from *anything*, &
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:oTcDk.99$Dk4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Yeah, how *dare* you make him feel even *that much* MMALLER[sic]!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wn4Dk.1575$Jw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Hmm, my problem w/that[sic] analysis is that I a[sic] convinced that
> it's more a question of "You;ve[sic] squandered the goodwill of
> our allies over Iraq when we really needed it now, ao[sic] now we
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IADCk.1229$Jw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> It'snosurprisethat[sic] the Rev Pedo would repeat this lie.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CD1Ck.887$MN3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Nice to know that BenZonah's being honest about himself,
> even if he - as I have always stated - ahas[sic] to pretend to be s[sic]
> omeone[sic] else to do it.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cYZBk.841$MN3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> *had* wrotten[sic] that thing is in the same league as his hero.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6WZBk.840$MN3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Susan O'Flaherty" is calling hiseslf[sic] would have made it
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gb0jko$h63$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> Thnaks[sic] for the sanity check.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:0qryk.864$Dj1.826@trnddc02...
> Whiuch[sic] one? Is her own pastor a whack-job, or just the visiting one?
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:kcryk.1043$393.339@trnddc05...
> (But it's nice to see how even the littest[sic] of truths sends you over
> the
> edge.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ga61ih$h0h$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> Well, unless youw[sic] ant[sic] to set up the US government as an arbiter
> of religion.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ga88ih$ucs$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> So, IOW, you colnd;t[sic] find your own version of this in the regular
> dictionary[sic],
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zaM3k.40065$MF3.17152@trnddc06...
> What's your escuse[sic] for not being able to do the same?
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:%wi2k.2027$bs3.504@trnddc07...
> and that it means just wha[sic] tthey[sic] pretend it does..
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:uGi2k.2119$bs3.337@trnddc07...
> Only slightly more remarkable when he uses it against
> any og[sic] the guys he tries to call that.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> Oh, Prozac wold[sic] be useless on him; I vote "cyanide."
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Nj_0k.2990$b_.1835@trnddc02...
> Of course - we'v[sic] eknown[sic] that since you reared your empty head
> w/yet another
> forgery.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g1i08n$g3t$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> So when are you going to take your own asvice[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g12ohh$bh6$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In factm[sid] it's the exact opposite thereof.
> If you don;t[sic] understand[sic], you argue!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
<flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:480d66c5....@news.tiscali.co.uk...
>Please note that, as always, tiscali - plainly posted here in
>KKKramer's reply - is not verizon, & tus (sic) this is an obvious -
>patheticly (sic) obvious! - forgery.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:WoRPj.14823$Zk5.9162@trnddc05...
> I said nothing of the sort. It's posted in sull[sic], above,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> The phony rev pedo wil[sic] lno[sic] neither.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UXRNj.11943$Ho5.10149@trnddc01...
> Being reviled by the dishonorable creting[sic] is meaningless to me,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IKUNj.25252$6w3.24915@trnddc07...
> Yes, he's definitely lying: the statistics tell the opposite story, & that
> enfuriates[sic] him.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk5jp$rbu$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> so you admit that you ddge[sic] giving an answer because you
> don't like the fact that our president is involved w/the[sic]
> oiligrachy[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net>
> At any rate, it was the bag-holding for Nazi murderers
> that makes some of us think so. Exactly in the way
> that a bank robber's bag-holder is indicated[sic] in his crime.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:FZYKj.7252$BT1.4974@trnddc04...
> It's nice when they expose themselves as mentally incompetent[sic] &
> morally
> deficient[sic].
> Pot[sic] left intact -
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf76d$jvt$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> This is illogical, because peole[sic], even if they "act unthinkingly"
> really do have *some* thought before they act.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf08e$c97$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> As Ithought[sic] I said before, I know it doesn't happen because
> the PLO, et al, have used the absence of rape to try to pretend
> the IDF is full of homosexuals.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flhtk2$7bh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> The latter is truem[sic], the former is not.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk19k$m0a$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Ye,s[sic] it's called "Torah."
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk5jp$rbu$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> so you admit that you ddge[sic] giving an answer because you
> don't like the fact that our president is involved w/the oiligrachy[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fkai7g$edt$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> The Jewish business owners I knew always out[sic] up generic
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk99be$vke$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Absolutely no problem whatoever[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9bb1$2ns$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Exceptr[sic] that they had warnings - and if the didn;t[sic] feel they
> were wanrings[sic],
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9b00$1tu$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
& mn[sic] can;t[sic]
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9btm$2tc$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Harsdly[sic] a rescue,
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk9966$vfd$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> That's a compliment I nay[sic] have to decline
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fk99qp$n8$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> & it might bebetter[sic] to learn tha[sic] "positive" does not mean
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf76d$jvt$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> This is illogical, because peole[sic], even if they "act unthinkingly"
> really do have *some* thought before they act.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flf08e$c97$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> As I thought[sic] I said before, I know it doesn't happen because
> the PLO, et al, have used the absence of rape to try to pretend
> the IDF is full of homosexuals.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flhtk2$7bh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> The latter is truem]sic], the former is not.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flk19k$m0a$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Ye,s[sic] it's called "Torah."
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:cVggj.831$sH.664@trnddc04...
> Yes & no.
> Itwould[sic] be understandable, because it's *instinctual*
> to save your own children first - or shold[sic] be.
> Of course they would hate you, but then, ask them if
> they would have saved their own child if theycould[sic]?
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Aeigj.5923$Xo1.1199@trnddc06...
> You are such a STUPID little liar!
> I could even tell you where/how you tripped up, but
> it's much more[sic] fun to watch you flounder more!
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:qoigj.5930$Xo1.3583@trnddc06...
> Keep your misisonizing[sic] to yourself, bigot, & you won't
> need to see anything that upsets you.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:t5Ojj.154939$Ue3.123652@trnddc07...
> When I sued[sic] OE, it didn't foul things up at all.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bbWjj.36372$Zo3.10136@trnddc02...
> Ah, thanks explains a lot - thanks.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NbWjj.41052$UX2.26156@trnddc08...
> But he does seem to be somewhat reactionary[sic].
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:5i9kj.66$k15.31@trnddc06...
> He's amde[sic] specific enough remarks, this posrt[sic] included - to
> expose himself, yet again, as a liar.
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6QTkj.13334$9t4.12518@trnddc08...
> To get the record strat[sic], anyone who calls a Nazi exactly what he is
> gets
> called the opposite gender.
>Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k7Ouj.11424$N95.11066@trnddc03...
> He knows wha tthey are - he's just - wait for it! -
> Susan
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
LOL!!! ...and poor psychopathic swine Grabmen's ass hurts when poor
psychopathic swine Cramer's ass gets clobbered!
Thanks for the show, you rare clowns!
Doctor Panta
--
Everyone check this: psychopath Grabmen glued to his computer today as from
03:34 a.m. again (MID: <cehan4drm9vurlq38...@4ax.com>).
Watch the poor psycho with no life AT ALL making a complete ass of himself,
AGAIN, for the next FOURTEEN to TWENTY HOURS (and more) at a stretch!
L Alpert
Of course. That's because you spend far too much time whining on line.
<deleted for brevity>
Ben Cramer
God no. No whining this fatso. You and the cohen slag have that pretty well
sewn up.
How are you getting on with your court case, fatso?
> Susan
> Susan
<flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
L Alpert
Now your trying to invoke deity in your defense. Poor ploy, bennie
boi.
> No whining this fatso.
Self flaming today?
> You and the cohen slag have that pretty well sewn up.
>
> How are you getting on with your court case, fatso?
How are you doing with your sheep, bennie boi?
<whining deleted for brevity>
You spend far too much time with your infatuation with Ms. Cohen.
Ben Cramer
"L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:vTsel.2741$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
No infatuation, fatso. It's an altruistic thing. I'm working hard to make
her a better person.
>
>
>
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> wrote:
> >> Of course. That's because you spend far too much time whining on
> >> line.
> >>
> >> <deleted for brevity>
> >
> > God no.
>
> Now your trying to invoke deity in your defense. Poor ploy, bennie
> boi.
It's that hypocrisy thing bigots have going for them.
>
> > No whining this fatso.
>
> Self flaming today?
>
> > You and the cohen slag have that pretty well sewn up.
> >
& this is that projecting thing they all have, too.
> > How are you getting on with your court case, fatso?
>
As is this one.
>
> How are you doing with your sheep, bennie boi?
>
Don't they have laws in Australia??
> <whining deleted for brevity>
>
> You spend far too much time with your infatuation with Ms. Cohen.
Yes, exposing his weaknesses while pretending they are mine.
Susan
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qdOel.1989$aI1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> On 23-Jan-2009, "L Alpert" <alp...@xxgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Of course. That's because you spend far too much time whining on
>> >> line.
>> >>
>> >> <deleted for brevity>
>> >
>> > God no.
>>
>> Now your trying to invoke deity in your defense. Poor ploy, bennie
>> boi.
>
> It's that hypocrisy thing bigots have going for them.
No hypocrisy me end, cohen. There is on fat alpert's end however.
What say of this, cohen?
Colorado Court of Appeals -- October 6, 2005
No. 04CA0400. Moreland v. Alpert.
Court of Appeals
City and County of Denver District Court No. 0 1CV4352 Honorable Shelley I.
Gilman, Judge
________________________________________
W. Douglas Moreland, Plaintiff,
v.
Laurence Alpert, a/k/a Lawrence Alpert, individually and d/b/a Columbine
Financial Solutions, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and Razor's Edge
Collections, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
Mark Alsentzer and August C. Schultes, III, Intervenors-Appellees.
________________________________________
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division V
Opinion by: JUDGE GRAHAM
Vogt and Román, JJ., concur
Announced: October 6, 2005
________________________________________
Dill Dill Carr Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC, Adam P. Stapen, Denver, Colorado,
for Defendants-Appellants
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., Stephen M. Johnson, Diane
Vaksdal Smith, Daniel J. Sullivan, Englewood, Colorado, for
Intervenors-Appellees
Defendants, Laurence Alpert, also known as Lawrence Alpert, individually,
and doing business as Columbine Financial Solutions, Inc., and Razor's Edge
Collection, L.L.C., appeal the trial court's order ruling that by writs of
garnishment, intervenors, Mark Alsentzer and August C. Schultes, III,
established a creditor's claim to shares of stock that was prior to the
claim plaintiff, W. Douglas Moreland, had attempted to establish by writs of
attachment. We affirm.
In 2001, plaintiff filed a complaint in the trial court against defendants
in which he sought damages for breach of contract, fraud, and other
statutory claims. In connection therewith, he sought to attach defendants'assets
prior to judgment.
In 2002, in response to plaintiff's ex parte request for prejudgment
attachment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 102, the trial court issued a writ of
attachment against all defendants'nonexempt property.
In January 2003, in New Jersey Superior Court, intervenors obtained a
judgment against defendants. The judgment was domesticated in Arapahoe
County District Court and entered as an order in April 2003.
Plaintifflearned that defendants had exercised, or were about to exercise, a
warrant to purchase certain shares of common stock in a publicly traded
corporation. Therefore, on November 19, 2003, plaintiff, with the aid of a
sheriff's deputy, served Corporate Stock Transfer (C.S.T.), the stock
transfer agent of the issuer, with a writ of attachment pursuant to C.R.C.P.
102(a). However, at the time of service, the deputy was unable to levy or
seize any stock certificates because C.S.T. did not have them in its
possession.
On December 1, intervenors served C.S.T. with their writ of garnishment with
notice of exemption and pending levy pursuant to C.R.C.P. 103(2). The writ
identified the judgment debtors as "Lawrence G. Alpert and/or Columbine
Financial Solutions, Inc." Although then in possession of the stock
certificates received from the issuer, C.S.T. did not own the stock and
refused to deliver the shares to intervenors without a court order because
C.S.T. had received plaintiff's prior writ of attachment.
On December 12, a stipulated settlement agreement between plaintiffand
defendants was entered as an order of the trial court. Specifically,
plaintiff agreed to dismiss three pending lawsuits against defendants in
exchange for defendants'shares of stock, and defendants agreed to waive any
technical defects in plaintiff's November 19 writ of attachment.
Three days later, C.S.T. filed an interpleader seeking leave to deposit the
shares with the court, pending the priority determination between the
competing claims of intervenors and defendants (claiming their right to the
shares by virtue of plaintiff's interest).
On December 17, plaintiff served C.S.T. with a second writ of attachment
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 102(a). However, C.S.T. had not yet become a party to
the litigation because an order allowing the interpleader had not yet been
signed, and no levy was effected by the sheriff's deputy.
The record reveals that, prior to C.S.T.'s motion to interplead the stock,
intervenors did not have notice of plaintiff's competing interest in the
shares of stock. On December 19, intervenors served defendants with a copy
of their writ of garnishment with notice of exemption and pending
levypursuant to C.R.C.P. 103(2) and then, on December 22, intervenors filed
their motion to intervene in the litigation.
A second writ of garnishment on a debtor other than a natural person,
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 103(4), identifying the judgment debtor only as
"Columbine Financial Solutions, Inc."was served on C.S.T. by intervenors on
December 23.
The trial court granted both C.S.T.'s and intervenors'motions for the
purpose of determining priority between plaintiff's writs of attachment and
intervenors'writs of garnishment.
The trial court set aside its earlier December 12, 2003, settlement order
authorizing the release of the shares to plaintiff, quashed plaintiff's
writs of attachment, quashed intervenors'first writ of garnishment, and
found intervenors'second writ of garnishment to be superior and valid.
This appeal followed.
I. Levy as Prerequisite to Attachment
We first address the priority of creditors'process because this issue is the
fulcrum of analysis for most of defendants'arguments. We reject defendants'contention
that plaintiff's writs were prior in time and right to intervenors'writs of
garnishment.
C.R.C.P. 102 governs attachment and allows "[a]ny party, at the time of
filing a claim. . . [to] have nonexempt property of the party against whom
the claim is asserted. . . attached by an ex parte order of court in the
manner and on the grounds prescribed in this Rule."C.R.C.P. 102(a). The rule
requires that the sheriff attach the personal property at issue by "taking
it into custody"and "return the writ of attachment within twenty days after
its receipt.. .making a full inventory of the property attached as a part of
his return upon the writ."C.R.C.P. 102(h)(3), (i).
According to C.R.C.P. 102(h), for a levy of personal property to occur, the
property must be taken into physical custody, and if the property is not
taken into custody, the process fails and the attachment is void. Crisman v.
Dorsey, 12 Colo. 567, 21 P. 920 (1889).
This rule comports with the Uniform Commercial Code rules for creditors'legal
process pertaining to negotiable instruments. Generally, there must be
actual manucaption, or physical possession, of a stock certificate before a
creditor can acquire a debtor's interest in the certificate.
Section 4-8-112, C.R.S. 2005, sets forth the general rule that a creditor
may reach a stock certificate only by actual seizure of the certificate by
the sheriff. However, a creditor may serve legal process upon an issuer
where the debtor has surrendered the certificate to the issuer, or the
creditor may seek the aid of the court to attach property that is not
otherwise reachable by legal process. Section 4-8-112 provides in pertinent
part:
(a) The interest of a debtor in a certificated security may be reached by a
creditor only by actual seizure of the security certificate by the officer
making the attachment or levy, except as otherwise provided in subsection
(d) of this section. However, a certificated security for which the
certificate has been surrendered to the issuer may be reached by a creditor
by legalprocess upon the issuer.
...
(d) The interest of a debtor in a certificated security for which the
certificate is in the possession of a secured party... may be reached by a
creditor by legal process upon the secured party.
(e) A creditor whose debtor is the owner of a certificated security. . . is
entitled to aid from a court of competent jurisdiction, by injunction or
otherwise, in reaching the certificated security. . . or in satisfying the
claim by means allowed at law or in equity in regard to property that cannot
readily be reached by other legal process.
In this case, plaintiff's writs failed to attach to the stock certificates,
and intervenors' writs of garnishment were the only legitimate creditor's
process. In reaching this conclusion, we are called upon to interpret §
4-8-112 in light of the rules of legal process set forth in C.R.C.P. 102 and
103.
Statutory interpretation and construction are questions of law. Yacht Club
II Homeowners Ass'n v. A.C. Excavating, 94 P.3d 1177 (Colo. App. 2003), aff'd,
114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). In construing a statute, we adopt that
construction which best gives effect to the intent of the general assembly.
Cherry Creek Gun Club, Inc. v. Huddleston,___P.3d___(Colo. App. No.
04CA1009, July 14, 2005).
We ascertain legislative intent by first looking to the plain language of
the statute. In re Marriage of Dale, 87 P.3d 219 (Colo. App. 2003). Giving
effect to everyword, we do not adopt a construction that renders any term
superfluous, and thus, we will not read into a statute an exception or
proviso that the plain language does not suggest. Town of Telluride v. Lot
Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000).
We will apply the statute as written, unless doing so would lead to an
absurd result. Showpiece Homes Corp. v. Assurance Co., 38 P.3d 47 (Colo.
2001). If statutoryprovisions conflict, we will adopt the interpretation
that best harmonizes the provisions. Berg v. Indus. Claim Appeals
Office,___P.3d___(Colo. App. No. 04CA1 130, Aug. 11, 2005).
A. Requirement of Manucaption
In the official comment to § 4-8-112, the purpose of the requirement of
actual seizure is revealed: "In dealing with certificated securities the
instrument itself is the vital thing, and therefore a valid levy cannot be
made unless all possibility of the certificate's wrongfully finding its way
into a transferee's hands has been removed."Section 4-8-112 official cmt. 1.
The commentators warn that, unless a stock certificate is in the hands of a
sheriff, a debtor may still transfer the stock, even though he may be under
an order not to do so. Those commentators also observe that "although
injunctive relief is provided in subsection (e) so that creditors may use
this method to gain control of the certificated security, the security
certificate itself must be reached to constitute a proper levywhenever the
debtor has possession."Section 4-8-112 official cmt. 1.
Thus, an injunction may enjoin a debtor from transferring a security, but,
because it is a negotiable instrument, the debtor may nevertheless transfer
the security, even though he may be contemptuous in doing so.
We note that the record here shows defendants, the judgment debtors, did not
have possession of the stock certificates, but were attempting to gain
possession, with knowledge that intervenors had obtained a judgment against
them.
However, the process of garnishment is governed by C.R.C.P. 103. This
process differs significantly from that of a writ of execution. Garnishment
requires a person in possession of "property of any kind"of a debtor to hold
that property for the benefit of the person who serves the garnishment
subject to the jurisdiction of the court that issued the garnishment.
Indeed, this process gives "the court jurisdiction over the garnishee and
personal property of any description, owned by, or owed to, a judgment
debtor."C.R.C.P. 103(4)(e). The garnishment procedure specifically provides
that "a writ of execution shall not be required." C.R.C.P. 103(4)(c).
We are thus called upon to reconcile the seeming conflict between § 4-8-112,
which requires actual physical seizure of a stock certificate before it can
properly be levied, and C.R.C.P. 103, which suggests that a stock
certificate is placed within the jurisdiction of the court, under the
principle of in custodia legis, simply by serving the person who possesses
the certificate with a writ of garnishment.
As explained below, we conclude that the two provisions may be harmonized
and that stock certificates may be reached by a creditor under either
method. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's ruling that
intervenors'writ of garnishment gave them a priority interest in the subject
stock certificates.
B. Plaintiff's November 19, 2003, Writ of Attachment
It is undisputed that when the sheriff's deputy served C.S.T. with the writ
of attachment on November 19, C.S.T. did not have possession of the stock
certificates, and there was no physical seizure or levy of the stock
certificates. To effectuate the writ of attachment, the sheriffwould have
had to take possession, custody, or control of the stock certificates. See
Crisman v. Dorsey, supra. Plaintiff did not serve the issuer or any other
person or entity with process.
Under such circumstances, the mere attempt to levy did not give plaintiff,
as the attaching creditor, any right to the property. See Gottlieb v.
Barton, 13 Colo. App. 147, 57 P. 754 (1899).
C. In Custodia Legis
Defendants attempt to satisfy the need for manucaption by arguing that
C.S.T. was holding the stock certificates for plaintiff in custodia legis,
meaning that they were "in the custody and keeping of the law"at that time
the writ was served. Black's Law Dictionary 771 (7th ed. 1999). In other
words, defendants argue that through the concept of in custodia legis, there
was an effective, or constructive, levy of the certificates. We disagree.
Although defendants cite authority for the proposition that a levy can be
constructive, none of the cases cited deals with negotiable instruments.
Indeed, the holding in Crisman v. Dorsey, supra, is contrary to defendants'constructive
levy argument, because it establishes that the sheriff must actually possess
personal property before it can be deemed to be in custodia legis.
Justice v. Hoch, 84 Colo. 528, 271 P. 1116 (1928), involved a levyof grain
drills when a sheriff's notice was posted on the shed where the drills were
stored. Some of the drills were removed from the shed without permission.
The court found that the levywas proper and completed by locking the shed
and posting the notice on the shed because taking control of the shed
amounted to "custody as to enable an officer to retain and assert his power
and control over the property."Justice v. Hoch, supra, 84 Colo.at 532, 271
P. at 1117 (quoting Davidson v. Waldron, 31Ill. 120 (1863)). In such an
instance the sheriff asserted control over the drills. However, in this
case, the sheriff failed to assert control over the stock certificates.
In Snyder v. O'Conner, 102 Colo. 567, 81 P.2d 773 (1938), another case cited
by defendants, the court held that a spendthrift trust could not be reached
because it was partof a designated trust and the funds were in custodia
legis. This case has nothing to do with an attempted levy against stock
certificates. The trust was lawfully established and validly existing.
Therefore, the res of the trust was beyond the reach of creditors. The court's
conclusion that the res was in custodia legis does not imply that it was
under the jurisdiction of the court. Instead, the court merely referred to
the funds of the trust as being lawfully protected by a valid trust
instrument. There is no suggestion here that C.S.T. held the stock
certificates in trust for creditors. On the contrary, C.S.T. held the
certificates for the benefit of registered owners of the stock and was duty
bound to transfer the stock unless it had a restrictive legend on it
prohibiting transfer. See Edina State Bank v. Mr. Steak, Inc., 487 F.2d 640
(10th Cir. 1973).
Nor does First National Bank v. Monte Vista Hardware Co., 75 Colo. 440, 226
P. 154 (1924), support defendants'proposition. There, a levy of livestock
was deemed made when horses were segregated and corralled by a sheriff, even
though he did not remove them from the real property where they grazed. We
agree that in such an instance, a levy is properly made because the animals
were placed under the authority and control of the sheriff. We are aware of
no rule requiring manucaption of a horse to satisfy the requirement of levy.
Defendants urge that here, C.S.T. had legal custody of the stock
certificates and that such custody qualifies as a constructive levy. Nothing
in the record indicates that C.S.T. agreed to hold the stock certificates
for the sheriff or acted as an agent of either plaintiffor defendants.
Defendants cite no case, and we have found none, which would allow C.S.T. to
hold stock in lieu of the sheriff, thereby placing the stock within the
jurisdiction of the court (and therefore in custodia legis) to satisfy a
levy.
The statutory requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code and the rules of
attachment and garnishment convince us that negotiable instruments are
subject to strict, and not constructive, compliance with the rule that they
must be physically seized to be attached unless they fall into one of the
other categories of process under which they may be legally subject to
creditors'claims. C.R.C.P. 102, read in conjunction with § 4-8-112(a), does
not confer the jurisdiction necessaryto establish that the stock
certificates were in custodia legis after service of the November 19, 2003,
writ of attachment.
D. Plaintiff's December 17, 2003, Writ of Attachment
Plaintiff's second writ of attachment served on December 17 fails to accord
priority for the same reasons the first writ was ineffective.
Although C.S.T. was in possession of the certificates at the time of
service, it refused to give the certificates to the sheriff's deputy because
it had been served with intervenors'earlier writ of garnishment. Apparently,
the sheriff's deputy acquiesced in this refusal and did not demand or compel
possession. Accordingly, no levy was made because the sheriff failed to take
the stock certificates into his custody or to direct some alternative act
that would place those certificates in the court's custody.
Consequently, plaintiff's second writ of attachment is also void for failing
effectively to attach the stock certificates. See Crisman v. Dorsey, supra.
We are not suggesting in this analysis that C.S.T. could not be compelled to
relinquish actual stock certificates. Certainly defendants could compel
C.S.T. to hand over the certificates; however, the record does not indicate
that any such procedure was undertaken.
E. Intervenors'Writs of Garnishment
Garnishment procedures are set forth in C.R.C.P. 103. Writs of garnishment
may be served upon persons who hold earnings of a judgment debtor and upon
persons or entities who are in the possession and control of a judgment
debtor's credits, debts, money, choses in action, or personal property of
any kind. C.R.C.P. 103.
C.R.C.P. 103(2) prescribes a writ of garnishment that is directed to
personalproperty other than the earnings of a natural person. It provides,
in pertinent part, that this writ is "the exclusive procedure "through which
"personal property capable of manual delivery. . . owed to, or owned by, the
judgment debtor, and in the possession or control of the garnishee at the
time of service of such writ upon the garnishee, shall be subject to the
process of garnishment."C.R.C.P. 103(2)(a), (c). This type of writ
specifically does not require a writ of execution. C.R.C.P. 103(2)(c). As
with all forms of the writ, once served, the garnishee holds the property of
the debtor in custodia legis.
Another form of writ garnishment is provided for in C.R.C.P. 103(4). It is a
writ of garnishment to a judgment debtor who is not a natural person, and
the section provides that it is the "exclusive procedure through which
personal property of any kind of a judgment debtor other than a natural
person"may be garnished. C.R.C.P. 103(4)(a). As is the case with the form of
writ which garnishes personal property of natural persons, a writ of
execution is not required before the writ of garnishment's lien attaches and
the debtor's property comes within the jurisdiction and control of the
court. C.R.C.P. 103(4)(c).
The provisions of § 4-8-112 (e) work in harmony with the process provided in
C.R.C.P. 102 and 103. When the statutory requirements are read together with
the rules of process, it is apparent that a judgment creditor may take
physical possession through a levy of the judgment debtor's stock
certificates by serving a writ of execution upon the debtor, provided the
debtor is holding the security and complying with C.R.C.P. 102 and §
4-8-112(a).
Alternatively, a judgment creditor may garnish the debtor's personal
property, including stock certificates, in the hands of a third person.
Section 4-8-112(e); C.R.C.P. 103.
We do not read the provisions of § 4-8-112(e) as mandating a court order "in
regard to property that cannot readily be reached by other legal
process."Here, there was no showing that such an order was required because
the stock certificates could not readily be reached by other legal process.
Section 4-8-112(e) also states that a creditor is "entitled to aid from a
court of competent jurisdiction"so that a court with jurisdiction over the
property may "satisfy[] the claim by means allowed at law or in equity."
Therefore, once a valid writ of garnishment is served, the personal property
then held by the garnishee comes within the jurisdiction of the court and is
subject to the creditor's claim.
Applying this analysis to the facts here, we conclude that plaintiff chose
to use the legal process afforded by C.R.C.P. 102, but the process failed
because there was no levy of the stock. In contrast, intervenors chose to
use the legal process afforded by C.R.C.P. 103, and once a valid writ of
garnishment was served, the stock certificates -and C. S.T., the transfer
agent -became subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
Here, the trial court ruled that only the second writ of garnishment was
effective because the first writ was not issued on the proper form. Because
the first writ was on a form to be served when the debtor is a natural
person, the trial court reasoned that it "was improper and thus
unenforceable."
However, because the second writ was issued on the form prescribed where the
judgment debtor is other than a natural person, the trial court correctly
concluded that it was "the proper writ for garnishing the property of a
corporate judgment debtor and was the first writ properly served on C.S.T.
after C.S.T. gained possession of the . . . shares."
In light of our conclusion that neither of the writs of attachment was
effective, we need not consider intervenors' argument that their first writ
of garnishment effectively attached the stock certificates even though it
was on a form used with the notice of exemption for natural persons.
Intervenors are entitled to priority even assuming, without deciding, that
only the second writ of garnishment was valid.
F. Court's December 12 Order
Nor are we persuaded that the trial court's order of December 12, 2003, was
effective in seizing the stock or otherwise subjecting the stock to the
jurisdiction of the court. At most, the order was an incorporation of
plaintiff's and defendants'agreement to transfer the shares of stock to
plaintiff in exchange for plaintiff's dismissal of three pending claims
against defendants. The record indicates that no shares were ever
transferred under this agreement, and the order does not state that it was
entered to reach the shares.
On the contrary, the trial court indicated that when it entered its order,
it was not aware of intervenors'writ of garnishment or of competing claims
from another judgment creditor. The trial court vacated the order without
plaintiffever acquiring possession or control of the stock certificates.
Although pursuant to § 4-8-112(e), "[a] creditor whose debtor is the owner
of a certificated security. . . is entitled to aid from a court of competent
jurisdiction, by injunction or otherwise, in reaching the certificated
security,"the trial court's order did not qualify under this exception
because there was no jurisdiction over the stock certificates at the time it
was entered. The order that incorporated the settlement agreement also
failed to comply with the requirements of § 4-8-112(e) because it was not an
injunction and was not addressed as an alternative means of allowing
plaintiff to reach the stock certificates. Moreover, when the order was
entered, C.S.T. was not a party to the suit and therefore, was not subject
to the jurisdiction of the court.
We therefore discern no error in the trial court's order recognizing
intervenors as having the prior claim as creditors. II. Timely Intervention
Defendants next contend that intervenors'motion to intervene was untimely
and failed to satisfy the requirements of C.R.C.P. 24 and 102. We disagree.
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 102(k)(2), timely intervention by a creditor may be
made by filing a request to intervene within thirty days after levy has been
made under the writ of attachment in the original proceeding. Hartner v.
Davis, 100 Colo. 464, 68 P.2d 456 (1937). Here, it is undisputed that
intervenors'request was filed December 22, 2003, more than thirty days after
the initial writ of attachment was served on November 19, 2003.
C.R.C.P. 24 provides that a nonparty may intervene in a civil action as a
matter of right or by permissive intervention.
One who timely files an application for intervention may intervene as a
matter of right if a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene or
(1) the applicant claims an interest in the subject matter of the
litigation; (2) the disposition of the case may impede or impair the
applicant's ability to protect that interest; and (3) the interest is not
adequately represented by existing parties. C.R.C.P. 24(a); People v. Ham,
734 P.2d 623 (Colo. 1987); Dillon Cos. v. City of Boulder, 183 Colo. 117,
515 P.2d 627 (1973); Higley v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 920 P.2d 884 (Colo.
App. 1996).
C.R.C.P. 24(b)(2) allows for permissive intervention when an applicant's
contentions and the proceedings present common questions of law or fact, so
long as the intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the rights of
the original parties. CF & I Steel, L.P. v. Air Pollution Control Div., 77
P.3d 933 (Colo. App. 2003).
The determination of the timeliness of a motion to intervene is a matter
which rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. In re Marriage
of Guinn, 522 P.2d 755 (Colo. App. 1974)(not published pursuant to C.A.R.
35(f)). Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's ruling will not be
disturbed on appeal. Tekai Corp. v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 39 Colo.
App. 528, 571 P.2d 321 (1977).
The rule governing intervention should be liberally interpreted to allow,
whenever possible and compatible with efficiency and due process, issues
related to the same transaction to be resolved in the same lawsuit and at
the trial court level. Feigin v. Alexa Group, Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001).
Here, intervenors'claim relies upon a common question of fact and law
because their ability to secure the stock certificates will be affected by
the outcome of the case. Because it is undisputed that intervenors are
judgment creditors of defendants who have an interest in seeking possession
of the stock certificates and because the record clearly indicates that
defendants'interest was not aligned with intervenors'interest, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted
intervention.
However, as previously discussed, it is undisputed that the sheriff failed
to seize or take the stock certificates into possession. Without physical
custody, there was no levy, see Crisman v. Dorsey, supra, and, for that
reason, the trial court was correct in determining that intervenors' motion
was not untimely because the thirty-day time limit had not begun to run.
Under these circumstances, we find no error and willnot disturb the trial
court's ruling that the intervention was timely.
III. Collateral Attack on Writs of Attachment
Defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing intervenors to
collaterally attack the merits of plaintiff's writs of attachment. In our
view, the circumstances here do not present a collateral attack of the
writs.
An intervenor in an attachment proceeding may succeed only by showing a
paramount title, interest, or lien. An intervenor may not attack the
sufficiency of the plaintiff's affidavit upon which the writ was issued, nor
may he challenge the service of the writ. Elliott v. First Nat'l Bank, 2
Colo. App. 164, 30 P. 53 (1892). In Elliott, it was observed that where the
question was not raised "between the parties to the suit, and not affecting
the jurisdiction of the court," the writ could not be quashed. Elliott v.
First Nat'l Bank, supra, 2 Colo. App. at 168, 30 P. at 54.
Here, the question of jurisdiction is raised because it was necessary to
determine the priority of claims. Intervenors attempted to show that their
claim was paramount to that of plaintiff, precisely as a result of the
correct process subjecting the stock to the jurisdiction of the court.
Rather than attacking the bona fides of the writs, intervenors established
that their garnishment was prior in time and right.
Even if intervenors could be seen as having made a collateral attack upon
the writs, it would not alter the fact that according to the correct
creditors'process, plaintiff's writs of attachment were void because there
was no levy as required by C.R.C.P 102(a), (h)(3), and (i), § 4-8-112, and
Crisman v. Dorsey, supra. The levy was required in order to confer
jurisdiction.
IV. Settlement Agreement and Corresponding Order Defendants argue that they
had the absolute right to transfer the shares of stock pursuant to the
settlement agreement they
entered into with plaintiffon December 12, as well as pursuant to the
corresponding order from the trial court. Defendants contend that because
intervenors'December 1 writ of garnishment was filed while the stock
certificates were in custodia legis, the settlement agreement and
corresponding order gave them the authority to transfer the stock
certificates to plaintiff. We are not persuaded.
As discussed above, we reject defendants'argument that the stock
certificates were in custodia legis as a result of the service of either of
plaintiff's writs because there was no physical change of possession and
consequently no levy as required by both C.R.C.P. 102 and § 4-8-112(a).
Furthermore, even if defendants had a right to transfer the shares to a
third party, the record indicates that they did not do so. The stock was
never transferred to a third party, but remained in the custody and control
of C.S.T. until a valid writ of garnishment was served.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement and the order, defendants agreed to
waive any technical defects present in plaintiff's November 19 writ of
attachment, and now they argue that because the agreement was executed prior
to the service of intervenors'second writ of garnishment and divested
defendants with the power to transfer the stock, the shares were transferred
to plaintiff before service of the second writ of garnishment.
However, as discussed above, the deficiency in the writs was not a technical
defect; instead, they were both void for failure to levy the stock
certificates. See § 4-8-112; C.R.C.P 102(a), (h)(3), (i); Crisman v. Dorsey,
supra.
As a result, we conclude that the trial court did not err in setting aside
its order accepting the settlement agreement between plaintiff and
defendants.
The order is affirmed.
JUDGE VOGT and JUDGE ROMÁN concur.