Sebring and Hitlaw

On 19 Jan 2007 10:07:46 -0800, "olympusE1"
wrote:

...if you have indeed "checked that already" then why is it that you, a
"Certified Computer Network expert" can't find it, and my 16 year old
son, along with everyone else on this newsgroup who tries, can?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.

You're wrong, Mr. Jimenez, just like you were when we had the
discussion vis a vis filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 codes.
Hitlaw is in the database, and one can file for dissolution under
Chapter 7.

I'll spare you the chuckless, the lols, the lmaos and other
assorted snide remarks.

You forgot the mercy snips everytime someone else speaks the truth.

You are wrong. There is nothing bad about being wrong; what annoys me,
and 99.9999999 percent of the people on this newsgroup, is that you can
look at a blue sky, declare that it is pink, and then insult everyone
who has the temerity to insist that it is blue.

By the way, if you want to find Mr. Hitlaw in the database, DO NOT
input a country or a state; just his first and last name. The address,
which is not shown, is obviously in neither the US or Florida. After
you've done that, please come back online and apologize, or at the very
least, admit you were wrong.

Juan Jimenez wrote:
I checked that already, Alan.

FAA REGISTRY
Name Inquiry - List Results
Total Names found for HITLAW
in the country of UNITED STATES is 0

FAA REGISTRY
Name Inquiry - List Results
Total Names found for HITLAW
in the country of INDONESIA is 0

"olympusE1" wrote in message
oups.com...
yes, he is. check it again, Mr. Jimenez.

here's the link to the query page.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airm...ry/default.asp

you are wrong. let's see if you are adult enough to admit it.


Juan Jimenez wrote:
"olympusE1" wrote in message
ups.com...

...ummm, check your facts, Mr. Jimenez, or at least do a search of the
database you're quoting to ensure that what you are saying is remotely
accurate. Mr. Hitlaw is indeed on the FAA database, and has current
A&P and Senior Parachure Rigger (chest) certificates.

No, he's not. There is no Hitlaw in the database, either in the US or in
Indonesia.

As for yourself, are you the Juan Jimenez with the student ticket since
2000, or the Juan Carlos Jimenez who's had a Private ticket since 1987?

Neither. I have a private ticket, single and multiengine land, and I have
never been off the database.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Then how did you respond to DABEARs message on the 1/17 in less than 20
minutes. I might have been born in the morning, but it wasn't yesterday
morning. Go bull**** someone else.

BobR wrote:
You are not a lawyer but you must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express
last night. BG

Dan wrote:
DABEAR wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:

As a WHAT? LOL! Does that include being investigated by the FBI for making
threatening calls to entities that happen to be associated with ANN?

Made a copy of this one. Big mistake, Juan. Took your lying too far.
I made contact with the FBI in Denver twenty minutes ago and have the
procedure to determine if any such investigation is underway.

Your libelous allegations are denied in their entirety.
To prove libel damages do you not have to prove injury? How were you
injured by the rants of yawn on RAH?

I'm not a lawyer, but I saw one on TV. As much as I'd like to see
yawn receive some wall to wall counsellings if I sat on your jury I'd
vote against you based on what has been presented here thus far.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


You peeked?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article , Dan wrote:
DABEAR wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:

As a WHAT? LOL! Does that include being investigated by the FBI for making
threatening calls to entities that happen to be associated with ANN?


Made a copy of this one. Big mistake, Juan. Took your lying too far.
I made contact with the FBI in Denver twenty minutes ago and have the
procedure to determine if any such investigation is underway.

Your libelous allegations are denied in their entirety.

To prove libel damages do you not have to prove injury?

In point of legal fact, "No."

How were you
injured by the rants of yawn on RAH?

There are three separate lines of reasoning to support a defamation claim:
1) the hypothetical 'reasonable person', would give credence to the
utterances, and you would suffer (and probably have suffered) harm
thereby.
2) "actual" harm can be shown. e.g. somebody told you they wouldn't do
business because of what 'so-and-so said'.
3) Certain types of assertations that are considered to be 'automatically'
defamatory, unless one is in possession of ironclad proof of the truth
thereof. This is a special situation, known as "Libel per se". One
example is that of stating that a _married_ woman is "unfaithful".

"Type 3" claims _rarely_ go to trial -- defendant's lawyer advises that
defendant does not have a possible defense, and urges settlement. On the
rare case where it does go to trial, essentially the only issue is 'how
much' plaintiff is going to get.

'Type 2' claims are comparatively *uncommon*. Finding the party who will
testify that they believed, _and_acted_upon_, the defamation is very
difficult.


The majority of actual defamation actions are based on something that
was said publicly, in a manner/forum such that it is deemed reasonably
believable. "Background of", and "familiarity with" the parties making
the statements and/or those named therein, is -not- a prerequisite for
evaluation of the 'believability' of the statement.

Additional note: yawn's habit of 'posing the matter as a question', with
an 'ill-defined referent' does *not* evade liability. He can claim till
he's blue in the face that he "wasn't referring to "any actions involving
so-and-so" with that 'question' -- but it is a matter of what the 'reasonable
man' would believe he meant, not what he -says- he meant.


Yawn _has_ 'crossed the line' of actionable defamation in his postings to
this newsgroup, *many* times.

He does it, because he believes he can 'get away with it', since his victims
don't have the 'spare resources' to haul him into court -- and he's close
enough to "judgement proof" that no attorney would take a case on contingency
basis.

I'm not a lawyer, but I saw one on TV. As much as I'd like to see
yawn receive some wall to wall counsellings if I sat on your jury I'd
vote against you based on what has been presented here thus far.

Based on _that_, you wouldn't get on the jury in the first place.
You've already decided you know what the law is, without listening to
the judge's instructions.

"Whome?" wrote in message
...
Jim,

If your news reader doesn't afford you the ability to tell who is, or who
is
not, posting under one of your messages, then maybe "you should try" a
more
functional news reader.

It works just fine, until I delete a person from the right to appear on my
machine.

Why can't you just follow a very simple newsgroup convention, and quote the
person you are replying to, in part at least?

I know the answer. Not my problem, microsoft sucks, ... yada, yada, yada.

Oh, by the way, you just lost the right to appear on my machine.

Plonk
--
Jim in NC

For trying to transpose your own problems to others, and on the basis of
"religion" at that.

"red12049" wrote in message
...
My excuse for what, Juan?

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...
Nah, I just ignore them. What's your excuse?

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Do you have a problem with reverends, or other religious professionals?


"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Ummmm.... Yes, Juan, I am the judge of that, for me. And I can even
point it out to others, so they can make their own judgements, for
themselves. As can you. That is not a delusion Juan, that is life.

That's what "reverends" do as well. Knock yourself out.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"DABEAR" wrote in message
oups.com...

Juan Jimenez wrote:

As a WHAT? LOL! Does that include being investigated by the FBI for
making
threatening calls to entities that happen to be associated with ANN?


Made a copy of this one. Big mistake, Juan.

When it comes to you, Daniels, the only mistake anyone can make is not
locking the refrigerator.

Trust me on this one, putz, your verbal diahrreas mean nothing to me.

mercy snip



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"BobR" wrote in message
ps.com...
Damn Richard, why did you have to go and explain to that "Computer Know
It All" how to do a simple search? It was so much more fun watching
him repeat the same stupid mistake over and over again while thinking
he was so smart. It does explain how he comes up with some of the crap
he does from time to time.

First it was crapola, now it's down to crap, what's next, Bob?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

It's a real puzzler. I can see how that one would have stumped you.
In the future, when you're searching a database and you don't know
some of the search values, use a wild card or leave them blank.

That's exactly what I did.

The question remains, is this the same Frank Hitlaw? Director of Maintenace
at Far 129 airlines less than 10 years since he got his A&P ticket? Sorry,
but I don't buy it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"olympusE1" wrote in message
ps.com...
...if you have indeed "checked that already" then why is it that you, a
"Certified Computer Network expert"

You must be thinking of the wrong person, or else you're making the common
mistake of parroting what other RAH gagglers say, Alan. Bad idea.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.

Well, then you're making yet another common mistakes, that of thinking I
care.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com