Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- From: Brent <borgersbrent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:39:02 GMT
On 2 Jun 2005 13:22:51 -0700, iladsfan@xxxxxxxxx eloquently stated:
>I now believe that kathleen is a very sick woman and deserves our
>sympathy and help if shell take it. It took me a while because I was so
>hurt and angry when I learned the truth but I thought about it and I
>think she probably believes what she says, and needs to get a lot of
>help. It is a shame. I really think she probably means well and would
>like to help but I think shes not in a place where she can help anyone
>but maybe we can help her?
So what you are saying is that all the evidence she posted is untrue?
Have you read and understood what she posted? I doubt it. Who Kathleen
is is not important. What she posted on sci.med.lyme is very
important. Who in this group feels like no crimes at all were
committed?
This WILL go to court. Even if it has to go through the newspapers
first.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- From: derdrittemann2003
- Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- From: kathleen
- Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- From: CaliforniaLyme
- Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- From: derdrittemann2003
- Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- From: iladsfan
- Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- Prev by Date: Re: In the future all cows will be grey
- Next by Date: Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- Previous by thread: Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- Next by thread: Re: Conversation with the US Attorney--District of Connecticut
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading