On Nov 13, 12:58 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 1:46 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 8:19 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 4:05 am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 12, 9:13 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 12, 8:32 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > CT DCF ignored Federal consent decree for 17 years, grag
claims, but
> > > > > > the article actually says "it has met the majority of criteria
> > > > > > established by the court." Why can't grag read and comprehend
what he
> > > > > > posts?????
>
> > > > > > They got put under a Federal consent decree 17 years
> > > > > > ago and still haven't completely complied.
>
> > > > > "Got put?"
>
> > > > > What does that mean?
>
G > How long should the aggrieved plaintiffs wait, Dan?
DS > Which critical steps remain undone?
G > Do you think the Federal Court's consent
G > decree asked too much of them?
DS > Again, which critical steps remain undone?
G > Something the JUDGE ordered.
DS > The typical grag pathetic response.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree
DS > Another typical pathetic response from grag.
DS > The question you are evading is
DS > "which critical steps remain undone?"
DS > You don't know, do you?
Tell us Dan! I know it chaps your hid so!
I know that in other cases the agency
didn't do diddly squat in over ten years!
|
