[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Jury duty revisited.

Subject: Re: Jury duty revisited.
From: "Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:33:05 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <-62dnZ2dnZ31QhTUnZ2dnbpYbt-dnZ2dRVn-0Z2dnZ0@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <LRSIe.62$xZ2.3251@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dd0vd4$674i$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4qe8f19k8agknvi0hrubh0lsvbaqt35thq@xxxxxxx>

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4qe8f19k8agknvi0hrubh0lsvbaqt35thq@xxxxxxxxxx
>> If we are guaranteed a jury of peers, does that mean
>> the defendant was an alarm installer?
>
> So Jiminex finally went on trial for hitting that kid with a
> hammer?  That's nice.
>
> On a lighter note, I spoke to a buyer from an outfit in Milford,
> CT, today.

<snip>

Was he also a Captain on an MD-80??  No wait...  He's an aircraft engineer
(part time of course)...

References:
- Jury duty revisited.
  - From: Bob La Londe
- Re: Jury duty revisited.
  - From: Crash Gordon
- Re: Jury duty revisited.
  - From: Roberto
- Re: Jury duty revisited.
  - From: Robert L Bass

Prev by Message: Re: Ademco Vista 10SE
Next by Message: Re: Next Alarm
Previous by thread: Re: Jury duty revisited.
Next by thread: Re: Jury duty revisited.
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home