 | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Good. Chris (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Wow, wouldn't *that* be interesting? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But in this case the girl has no physical wounds. This suggests to me that the other woman may not have felt the girl was in any danger. It seems to me that this case goes further than just a child battery charge and giving aid to a criminal. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
Agents acting under Ashcroft, as Atty. general, are his responsibility. He's the man in charge -- he's the one that knows or is obligated to know what is going on under his command. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) statute: TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 1983. Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
