Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED

    Good Grief. ACS by association. Let's see how L.Crackangelo spins this.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGRT5G2BR1.DTL

    A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED
    In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life and
    times of the 'perfect' son

    Excerpt: It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he had two
    siblings who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- a brother,
    born in 1963, and a sister, born in 1965.

    Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunion with
    their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her other children.
    Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister, Anne
    -- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matching black and
    orange outfits.



    -------------------------
    A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
    be sitting next to you saying, "**** . . . that was fun!"
    -----Unknown

  • #2
    A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED

    Well! That explains it all. He's an adoption survivor! (using the
    parlance of "abortion survivor").

    Marley




    "LilMtnCbn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    Good Grief. ACS by association. Let's see how L.Crackangelo spins this.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGRT5G2BR1.DTL
    A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life
    and
    times of the 'perfect' son Excerpt: It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he had
    two
    siblings who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- a
    brother,
    born in 1963, and a sister, born in 1965. Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunion
    with
    their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her other
    children.
    Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister,
    Anne
    -- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matching
    black and
    orange outfits. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
    will
    be sitting next to you saying, "**** . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

    Comment


    • #3
      A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED

      >Marley Greiner" [email protected]
      Date: 3/7/2004 11:05 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <[email protected]>Well! That explains it all. He's an adoption survivor! (using theparlance of "abortion survivor").Marley
      You couldn't be more wrong. He obviously has ACS by Proxy.
      "LilMtnCbn" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
      Good Grief. ACS by association. Let's see how L.Crackangelo spins this.
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGRT5G2BR1.DTL
      A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life
      and
      times of the 'perfect' son Excerpt: It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he had
      two
      siblings who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- a
      brother,
      born in 1963, and a sister, born in 1965. Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunion
      with
      their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her other
      children.
      Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister,
      Anne
      -- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matching
      black and
      orange outfits. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
      will
      be sitting next to you saying, "**** . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

      kj

      Comment


      • #4
        A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED

        719 Date: 2004-03-07 16:26:11
        David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the
        Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.

        If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar
        searches would have located the body.

        Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just
        located at the bottom of Auke Bay.

        Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a
        reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not
        located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she
        was buried in a shallow grave.

        Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that
        is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to
        implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have
        proved.


        718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
        Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not
        fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do
        not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist
        because of their silent consent.


        717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
        David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm
        persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be
        corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."

        Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a
        separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's
        scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon
        of fishing on the day she went missing. The
        jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador
        retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot
        of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.

        Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence,
        Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott
        Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus
        washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does
        that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?

        Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is
        Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make
        any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to
        call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is
        the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the
        most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his
        warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog
        picked up Laci's scent – at the marina!"

        Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?

        Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence
        because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even
        though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci
        Peterson's scent, and that is not justifiable.

        Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses
        corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is
        extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin
        the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent.
        Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
        at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking
        her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called,
        "corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre
        theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what
        you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.


        716 Date: 2004-03-03 03:35:51
        Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        Judge rules that the "evidence" published in the National Enquirer on
        January 6, is admissable ! LOL

        Dogs tracked Laci's scent to a boat she had never been on. Fascinating
        ! Sounds like dogs don't know the difference between Scott and Laci's
        property, since Scott had handled it. For those who don't know the
        diff, that's called contaminated evidence --but what else do you
        expect from the National Enquirer? You would think that a judge would
        know better.


        715 Date: 2004-03-01 21:45:35
        John Ashcroft's Justice Department is involved? ( no email / no
        homepage) wrote:

        "They have report after report after report of investigations that
        were taking place in December," Geragos said. "These items are
        negative for my client. I've got pages upon pages of hair comparisons
        that exclude my client at every single point."

        Prosecutor David Harris said they were working with the Department of
        Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to turn over the
        reports.

        "We're doing the best we can," Harris told Delucchi. "We're going up
        the chain and saying you need to get this done."


        714 Date: 2004-03-01 16:14:28
        Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        Oh Fred, you are so gentle with your leading questions, don't beat
        around the bush ! These idiots are trying to suggest that Scott
        Peterson made cement anchors, used them to sink Laci, and he just left
        one behind so that the geniuses can trace it back to Scott. These
        MORONS are so stupid, it will be a huge shock if the entire jury does
        not die laughing before this is over.


        713 Date: 2004-03-01 15:38:19
        Fred Sanfilippo ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby were simultaneously recovered
        in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where
        Scott Peterson was reported fishing on the day his wife vanished -
        Christmas Eve, 2002.

        Who is gullible enough to believe that Scott Peterson directed the
        opportunity to frame himself?


        712 Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
        David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
        Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
        Justice does not prevail.

        Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
        plausible to legitimately convict a man who has been cleared by 24/7
        scrutiny. The slanderous and spurious allegations which are now called
        "the evidence" have been published in detail, in the National Enquirer
        and if this disinformation is to be pawned off to an unsuspecting
        jury, they need to be informed. And so, if the trial against Scott
        Peterson is to be fair, the judge must instruct the jury accordingly;
        "Members of the jury, I am supplying you with 10 issues of the
        National Enquirer. The theories of nine of the issues have been
        rejected by the prosecution because they made you all laugh. The
        January 6, 2004 issue is indisputable because the National Enquirer
        published a picture of Merlin the tracking dog, and THAT is what you
        call INDISPUTABLE evidence. If, in your infinite wisdom, you determine
        that the National Enquirer is a credible source, you must find guilt
        beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that the National Enquirer is
        not credible, then Investigators like David Sween gets the last word."

        This case is clearly over as far as the guilt or the innocence of
        Scott Peterson is concerned.

        The judge in the Laci Peterson murder trial was supposed to be Richard
        Arnason, a retired Contra Costa County judge who was choseny by
        California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. Arnason is a
        well known, criminal law expert with extensive death penalty case
        experience and having served on the Superior Court of Contra Costa
        County for 31 years, he would never tolerate the tactics of
        prosecutors who are pretending to have a case against Scott Peterson.
        Needless to say, the prosecutors had to shop around, to find a judge
        who was willing to listen to a case that would have been thrown out a
        long time ago, if a reasonable judge like Arnoson was not replaced.

        Clearly, any Judge who determines that the National Enquirer had
        showed probable cause that Scott Peterson had killed 27-year-old Laci,
        who was nine months pregnant, and dumped her body in San Francisco
        Bay, needs his head examined.

        I know what I am talking about. In my experience, reasonable and fair
        Judges are irresponsibly replaced when prosecutors understands the
        weakness of their case.

        Michael Cardoza, a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco Bay
        area, thought that both the prosecution and the defense would approve
        of Arnason and every legal expert was shocked to hear he had been
        replaced.

        "He does what's right and he controls his courtroom," said Cardoza,
        who tried a case before Arnason in 1998.

        If the prosecution had a case, they would have accepted Arnason.
        Instead, they made sure he was disqualified because they [try not to
        laugh] claimed that an experienced and distinguished judge was biased
        against them.

        Mark Geragos is understandably frustrated and angered by the kangaroo
        court that the prosecutors are seeking to construct for the sake of
        lynching Scott Peterson. The prosecution selected judge is even
        refusing to sequester the jury, and in this case, a jury that is not
        sequestered is subject to the manipulation that the Skakel jury was
        subjected to, when demagogues like Dominick Dunne dined within earshot
        of the jurors that lynched Michael Skakel. Needless to say, this
        prosecution is seeking an equally creative way to manipulate the
        Peterson jury; is that why they opposed the request to sequester the
        jury?

        Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said jurors will be allowed to go home each
        night with an admonishment not to discuss the case, "and we'll see
        what happens." We'll see what happens, if this selected fool who is
        supposed to be a judge, continues to preside over a kangaroo court.

        I repeat; The case against Scott Peterson is OVER, because Scott
        Peterson, the most investigated man in America, has been absolutely
        cleared by 24/7 scrutiny. In the alternative, you can promote the so
        called credibility of the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
        Enquirer, because every other issue has prompted widespread laughter
        --and now, it's just a matter of time... before the media rejects the
        latest fraud.


        711 Date: 2004-02-29 15:44:47
        Jake Stewart ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        By Kim Curtis
        ASSOCIATED PRESS
        12:22 a.m. February 26, 2004

        REDWOOD CITY – Laci Peterson's trail ended at the water's edge.

        It began as a scent path picked up by police dogs, leading from Scott
        and Laci Peterson's Modesto home down the road to nowhere.

        According to testimony this week by the dogs' handlers, Laci
        Peterson's scent was again picked up at a nearby warehouse that Scott
        Peterson rented and on a boat he had stored inside – the same boat
        prosecutors say he used to ferry his wife's body out into the San
        Francisco Bay.
        _______________________________

        Wow, Associated Press read the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
        Enquirer, and it publishes it as "the news" for February 26, 2004. LOL


        710 Date: 2004-02-28 14:04:07
        Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

        When did the National Enquirer become the medium for who goes to jail
        and who does not?

        Does the judge in the Scott Peterson case read the National Enquirer?
        For those with a low IQ, this is not a trick question !

        http://www.geocities.com/botenth/national.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED

          so sad -the MORONS who murdered Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson have
          failed to frame Scott.

          719 Date: 2004-03-07 16:26:11
          David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the
          Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.

          If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar
          searches would have located the body.

          Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just
          located at the bottom of Auke Bay.

          Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a
          reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not
          located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she
          was buried in a shallow grave.

          Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that
          is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to
          implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have
          proved.


          718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
          Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not
          fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do
          not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist
          because of their silent consent.


          717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
          David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm
          persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be
          corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."

          Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a
          separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's
          scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon
          of fishing on the day she went missing. The
          jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador
          retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot
          of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.

          Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence,
          Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott
          Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus
          washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does
          that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?

          Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is
          Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make
          any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to
          call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is
          the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the
          most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his
          warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog
          picked up Laci's scent – at the marina!"

          Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?

          Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence
          because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even
          though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci
          Peterson's scent, and that is not justifiable.

          Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses
          corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is
          extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin
          the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent.
          Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
          at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking
          her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called,
          "corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre
          theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what
          you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.


          716 Date: 2004-03-03 03:35:51
          Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          Judge rules that the "evidence" published in the National Enquirer on
          January 6, is admissable ! LOL

          Dogs tracked Laci's scent to a boat she had never been on. Fascinating
          ! Sounds like dogs don't know the difference between Scott and Laci's
          property, since Scott had handled it. For those who don't know the
          diff, that's called contaminated evidence --but what else do you
          expect from the National Enquirer? You would think that a judge would
          know better.


          715 Date: 2004-03-01 21:45:35
          John Ashcroft's Justice Department is involved? ( no email / no
          homepage) wrote:

          "They have report after report after report of investigations that
          were taking place in December," Geragos said. "These items are
          negative for my client. I've got pages upon pages of hair comparisons
          that exclude my client at every single point."

          Prosecutor David Harris said they were working with the Department of
          Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to turn over the
          reports.

          "We're doing the best we can," Harris told Delucchi. "We're going up
          the chain and saying you need to get this done."


          714 Date: 2004-03-01 16:14:28
          Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          Oh Fred, you are so gentle with your leading questions, don't beat
          around the bush ! These idiots are trying to suggest that Scott
          Peterson made cement anchors, used them to sink Laci, and he just left
          one behind so that the geniuses can trace it back to Scott. These
          MORONS are so stupid, it will be a huge shock if the entire jury does
          not die laughing before this is over.


          713 Date: 2004-03-01 15:38:19
          Fred Sanfilippo ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby were simultaneously recovered
          in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where
          Scott Peterson was reported fishing on the day his wife vanished -
          Christmas Eve, 2002.

          Who is gullible enough to believe that Scott Peterson directed the
          opportunity to frame himself?


          712 Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
          David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
          Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
          Justice does not prevail.

          Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
          plausible to legitimately convict a man who has been cleared by 24/7
          scrutiny. The slanderous and spurious allegations which are now called
          "the evidence" have been published in detail, in the National Enquirer
          and if this disinformation is to be pawned off to an unsuspecting
          jury, they need to be informed. And so, if the trial against Scott
          Peterson is to be fair, the judge must instruct the jury accordingly;
          "Members of the jury, I am supplying you with 10 issues of the
          National Enquirer. The theories of nine of the issues have been
          rejected by the prosecution because they made you all laugh. The
          January 6, 2004 issue is indisputable because the National Enquirer
          published a picture of Merlin the tracking dog, and THAT is what you
          call INDISPUTABLE evidence. If, in your infinite wisdom, you determine
          that the National Enquirer is a credible source, you must find guilt
          beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that the National Enquirer is
          not credible, then Investigators like David Sween gets the last word."

          This case is clearly over as far as the guilt or the innocence of
          Scott Peterson is concerned.

          The judge in the Laci Peterson murder trial was supposed to be Richard
          Arnason, a retired Contra Costa County judge who was choseny by
          California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. Arnason is a
          well known, criminal law expert with extensive death penalty case
          experience and having served on the Superior Court of Contra Costa
          County for 31 years, he would never tolerate the tactics of
          prosecutors who are pretending to have a case against Scott Peterson.
          Needless to say, the prosecutors had to shop around, to find a judge
          who was willing to listen to a case that would have been thrown out a
          long time ago, if a reasonable judge like Arnoson was not replaced.

          Clearly, any Judge who determines that the National Enquirer had
          showed probable cause that Scott Peterson had killed 27-year-old Laci,
          who was nine months pregnant, and dumped her body in San Francisco
          Bay, needs his head examined.

          I know what I am talking about. In my experience, reasonable and fair
          Judges are irresponsibly replaced when prosecutors understands the
          weakness of their case.

          Michael Cardoza, a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco Bay
          area, thought that both the prosecution and the defense would approve
          of Arnason and every legal expert was shocked to hear he had been
          replaced.

          "He does what's right and he controls his courtroom," said Cardoza,
          who tried a case before Arnason in 1998.

          If the prosecution had a case, they would have accepted Arnason.
          Instead, they made sure he was disqualified because they [try not to
          laugh] claimed that an experienced and distinguished judge was biased
          against them.

          Mark Geragos is understandably frustrated and angered by the kangaroo
          court that the prosecutors are seeking to construct for the sake of
          lynching Scott Peterson. The prosecution selected judge is even
          refusing to sequester the jury, and in this case, a jury that is not
          sequestered is subject to the manipulation that the Skakel jury was
          subjected to, when demagogues like Dominick Dunne dined within earshot
          of the jurors that lynched Michael Skakel. Needless to say, this
          prosecution is seeking an equally creative way to manipulate the
          Peterson jury; is that why they opposed the request to sequester the
          jury?

          Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said jurors will be allowed to go home each
          night with an admonishment not to discuss the case, "and we'll see
          what happens." We'll see what happens, if this selected fool who is
          supposed to be a judge, continues to preside over a kangaroo court.

          I repeat; The case against Scott Peterson is OVER, because Scott
          Peterson, the most investigated man in America, has been absolutely
          cleared by 24/7 scrutiny. In the alternative, you can promote the so
          called credibility of the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
          Enquirer, because every other issue has prompted widespread laughter
          --and now, it's just a matter of time... before the media rejects the
          latest fraud.


          711 Date: 2004-02-29 15:44:47
          Jake Stewart ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          By Kim Curtis
          ASSOCIATED PRESS
          12:22 a.m. February 26, 2004

          REDWOOD CITY – Laci Peterson's trail ended at the water's edge.

          It began as a scent path picked up by police dogs, leading from Scott
          and Laci Peterson's Modesto home down the road to nowhere.

          According to testimony this week by the dogs' handlers, Laci
          Peterson's scent was again picked up at a nearby warehouse that Scott
          Peterson rented and on a boat he had stored inside – the same boat
          prosecutors say he used to ferry his wife's body out into the San
          Francisco Bay.
          _______________________________

          Wow, Associated Press read the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
          Enquirer, and it publishes it as "the news" for February 26, 2004. LOL


          710 Date: 2004-02-28 14:04:07
          Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

          When did the National Enquirer become the medium for who goes to jail
          and who does not?

          Does the judge in the Scott Peterson case read the National Enquirer?
          For those with a low IQ, this is not a trick question !

          http://www.geocities.com/botenth/national.htm

          Comment

          The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
          Working...
          X