Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
John Dearing
()
Date: March 20, 2014 10:16PM
Need to have my soon to be ex-wife served with divorce papers, after a few attempts with the sheriffs office, I called KH & Associates. Great Experience!
khassociates.org
khassociates.org
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
P7cPn
()
Date: March 21, 2014 05:04PM
John Dearing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Need to have my soon to be ex-wife served with
> divorce papers, after a few attempts with the
> sheriffs office, I called KH & Associates. Great
> Experience!
>
> khassociates.org
Interesting, how much did it cost?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Need to have my soon to be ex-wife served with
> divorce papers, after a few attempts with the
> sheriffs office, I called KH & Associates. Great
> Experience!
>
> khassociates.org
Interesting, how much did it cost?
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
Mr. Answer
()
Date: March 21, 2014 05:39PM
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000568127145263560827 785771342757789609173637178721468440901224953430146549585371050792279689258923 542019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960518707211349999998372978049
per hour.
per hour.
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
aging debbie does dallas fan
()
Date: March 21, 2014 08:14PM
part 1: background of serving process
part 2: answer
part 3: appendix
part 4: appendix example structured debate
part 5: appendix sources
Lex necessitatis est lex temporis i.e. instantis - The law of necessity is the law of time, that is time present *
The old law is you talk to the judge if you have a case (or citation, or nothing).
ONLY the injured party could do so (yes, it's still in Black's law). A politician who was not injured? No. A gov worker? No. The injured party must have tried to mediate first and report having done so ****
You'd serve notice yourself or send a person to say the judge said they must come. If they are not there you leave it at their door. If it is windy, nail it to the door (this imputes responsibility).
The person upon first getting notice must walk immediately to the court to give an extemporaneous account to the judge (ie, to stop the complaint from going forward, or maybe to be held) with both parties present and no lawyers **
DELAY OF JUSTICE IS INJURY by time and etc. DELAY was not allowed. President Clinton was charged and lost to a delay charge remember? ie a person could go poor or starve, loose business or happiness, due to delay ******
If there is legal question debated, there is a trial (lawyers are disliked but allowed).
"scheduling trial a month away" was not allowed infact the first day both parties had walked into the town there had to be a verdict before dark*
Tampering with court proceeding (ie accosting the person leaving a court notice) was dealt with heavily, possibly by death or expulsion.
A person in (in good standing) who works with the courts and does not tamper and promised to continue working with the city, was treated equitably by the courts.
There is no such thing as "prosecutor" and defender. In every arguement there is assumed two sides both which must be heard and proved. In most cases there should be cross-complaints and no one to call prosecutor or defender.
The full truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anything else is tampering and can meet severe penalty if proven. *******
The rules of equity were allowed arguments, they were equity courts, and our United States Supreme Court still carries the name on the letter head of it's rules.
the verdict had to give equity to both parties for a better future but there are too many rules to explain on that point. certainly the penalty must fit the law broken, no more than that***
the verdict held until any next verdict was made (this was allowed however one judge would honor the juristiction and wishes of the other to stay civil about a matter)
part 2
--------------------------
this new crap that a gov worker must serve the notice for you is total contrivance to create cush jobs "for the elite". also it was challenged in court as being a gov mandate and the gov did not defend it's position, by me
however if there is a "no contact" warrant you should leave the message or have someone else leave it: to avoid any civil unrest anyway
it was illegal to defame the other party by decrying to the town (except for plain proven fact) before presented in court. that included yet to be awarded charges *****
now modernly the court must get a signature because parties are assumed to be lying sacks of shit that hide serves. lawyers are known cheat whenever possible.
in england they are trying a new law which assumes parties to be faithful and can do trials by telephone until either party complains good faith has been comprimised. don't try that in fairfax!
but in the old day, a runner would be sent to verify the person knew and they'd have to walk immediately to the judge. the judge would before other charges pense who was lying about service and refusing to mediate ... well see examples.
Don't try any of it in fairfax. However an adult can serve for you. Bring your copies to the clerk for a stamping. Have the person get the paper signed at delivery (you need copies). hell have a notary look at it if you want. In the end the judge has to be assured all parties (both legal teams and the county) have copies that show each partied agreed they had got a copy, the same copy. It all must be in a docket (the courts file room) and a court day must be scheduled or the judge is "unaware" of any of it (really? he's a gov asshole dodging a suit is more likely, in fairfax that is). You have to wait for defense to respond before any actual trial, pre-trial motions. If they do: modernly they are sacks of shit and won't.
Are you sure you don't just want to get a mediator? Today's gov is bound to make you wish you'd tried, I warn.
part 3
---------------------------
Origins of law was maybe commercial law which is "good faith" (all business is assumed in good faith unless otherwise agreed upon or shown against). Also law protected: town, citizens, and lastly chatels (possessions).
* by that time i'll be starved. if i had the time i could xxx and be done and happy. time is emergency, need, and money.
* armed militia (police) were not allowed to bring a person to court UNLESS already it had been proven the person was tampering with court procedure / refused to go willingly or immediately. not even in murder cases, because who was the one doing the lying and murdering was not known at the time of complaint: it was yet to be shown who. a person then and now could be "a setup". or end up dead before they got to trail (ie, the real murderer has the police kill the accused, then the town might sleep well on the fact nothign had gone wrong.)
* Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat - Impunity always leads to greater crimes. allowing one party to be assumed "the law" and the other as not before the trial, is impugnity. crime breeds did you know? by family yes. the rich or evil can pose as authority and buy police and write rules and lie: exactly why using militia before trial was (is, check Napoleanic code too, and UDHR) is not allowed (without warrant which imputes evidence and need, an emergency).
* repeat. it had been and technically still is illegal to use weapons and imprison people before a verdict. and they have a right to a jury which is a mandate upon the judge himself.
** the reason was time and cost to the city. at one time greeks were more liberal and they attended trial like today we do the movies: it was the news, the entertainment, and they got to vote as jury.
*** parting comments were allowed and the judge sometimes owed the reason for the verdict. before roman politicians corrupted the system judges could be put to death if they ruled in a case they profited from. it was clear no one could vote in a biased manner or abuse the courts for fraud: the rule held more strictly to those most entrusted.
**** a party that refused to mediate was view suspiciously during reasoned debate (trial)
***** the verdcit is the chart. it is still illegal for a prosecutor to intentionally "elevate charges". in the past there WAS NO CHARGE except that set forth by the judge by the verdict. for ex, one might suspect another of a kind of theft however by review of the judge maybe it was not theft at all that occurred. before trial there were suspicions and they could not be used as defamations to bias the court or jury. today the gov itself is the worst breaker of this law: they use the news to advertise their position in court and stain the image of who they prosecute
****** Dept. of Justice (or is it Delay of Justice) recently, 1998 was it? installed microsoft computers by contract and delayed trials out to a month on average. this is a kind of time attack by gov workers against civilians they are charging or denying justice to. Clinton was accused and was NOT allowed to delay court, it in his famous case, so the story went, while DOJ was doing absolutely the opposite.
******* There is no city feudalism and facism if the court allows liars: the court itself is then a veil of theives and murderers, ie, a Harod or Persecusias (persecution) or even Dr. Mengola.
example
-----------------------------
Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare se ipsum - No one is allowed to incapacitate h
imself.
Now why would they need and have an allowed and preprepared court argument such as that? Becasue it had been tried often to trick the court (in this case to claim damage one did to himself) and found out!
These people who worked on early law knew the tricks of gov and false prosecution and had frequently dealt with it. So did Thomas Jefferson. They were not the freeloaders of their day but the designers of their day.
Little understood about the intent of structured debate was avoiding false rulings (which would come back into court and cause wasted time and money) and MORESO to avoid circular arguments (allowing legal idiots to waste allot of time arguing somethign a scientist could put their finger on in two seconds flat to spend time more wisely. structured reasoning, aka, debate, fair debate. debate a town can afford without starving.)
sources
----------------------------
so says the book of "i told you so" and "duh, who didn't know that?". scientific reasoning of the day.
oh. no i mean of the 12 tables of very early greek law, greek literature, the [21] rules of equity (rules of the court, the italian was taken from allowed arguments/reasonings of court), first 50 years of roman law, science papers of logic, Black's law, Napoleanic law, UDHR, the federalist papers, DOI, Constitution (and other founding docs). the rules of equity and allot of Blacks are still hid in subsections federal legislation if one looks for it. they were limited by hacks to apply to very particular things: yet they are there in plain and easily read print.
But the laws are not in gov science books that teach the opposite. What do you know harvard publishers / debate society are democrat sacks of shit, after all !
In other words anything up to the cheating days of taft and graft, and infamously 1998 under the table money laundering politics and Wordpad'ed hacked legislation. The laws were there. They were used in cases faithfully: there is not a history of "gov ignores law and does whatever it wants". One can look back and see that's a patent lie. Law has had good and bad times maybe never so bad as now (and so is pay disparity): usually war and lawlessness in courts go together in time, i'll not assume they cause one another but it's a thought.
Not that the law was always followed: there were wars, which is when cases go beyond court.
btw the law must be plain and clear. some of today's legislation is "scotts law" and has no sure interpretation (gov always wins). that's already illegal. written law must be plain and clear, is the law.
=========================================
Among the traditional maxims are:
* 1 Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.
* 2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
* 3 Equity delights in equality
* 4 One who seeks equity must do equity
* 5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
* 6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
* 7 Equity acts in personam.
* 8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
* 9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
* 10 One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
* 11 Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
* 12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
* 13 Equity follows the law
* 14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
* 15 Between equal equities the law will prevail
* 16 Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
* 17 Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
* 18 Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
* 19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
part 2: answer
part 3: appendix
part 4: appendix example structured debate
part 5: appendix sources
Lex necessitatis est lex temporis i.e. instantis - The law of necessity is the law of time, that is time present *
The old law is you talk to the judge if you have a case (or citation, or nothing).
ONLY the injured party could do so (yes, it's still in Black's law). A politician who was not injured? No. A gov worker? No. The injured party must have tried to mediate first and report having done so ****
You'd serve notice yourself or send a person to say the judge said they must come. If they are not there you leave it at their door. If it is windy, nail it to the door (this imputes responsibility).
The person upon first getting notice must walk immediately to the court to give an extemporaneous account to the judge (ie, to stop the complaint from going forward, or maybe to be held) with both parties present and no lawyers **
DELAY OF JUSTICE IS INJURY by time and etc. DELAY was not allowed. President Clinton was charged and lost to a delay charge remember? ie a person could go poor or starve, loose business or happiness, due to delay ******
If there is legal question debated, there is a trial (lawyers are disliked but allowed).
"scheduling trial a month away" was not allowed infact the first day both parties had walked into the town there had to be a verdict before dark*
Tampering with court proceeding (ie accosting the person leaving a court notice) was dealt with heavily, possibly by death or expulsion.
A person in (in good standing) who works with the courts and does not tamper and promised to continue working with the city, was treated equitably by the courts.
There is no such thing as "prosecutor" and defender. In every arguement there is assumed two sides both which must be heard and proved. In most cases there should be cross-complaints and no one to call prosecutor or defender.
The full truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anything else is tampering and can meet severe penalty if proven. *******
The rules of equity were allowed arguments, they were equity courts, and our United States Supreme Court still carries the name on the letter head of it's rules.
the verdict had to give equity to both parties for a better future but there are too many rules to explain on that point. certainly the penalty must fit the law broken, no more than that***
the verdict held until any next verdict was made (this was allowed however one judge would honor the juristiction and wishes of the other to stay civil about a matter)
part 2
--------------------------
this new crap that a gov worker must serve the notice for you is total contrivance to create cush jobs "for the elite". also it was challenged in court as being a gov mandate and the gov did not defend it's position, by me
however if there is a "no contact" warrant you should leave the message or have someone else leave it: to avoid any civil unrest anyway
it was illegal to defame the other party by decrying to the town (except for plain proven fact) before presented in court. that included yet to be awarded charges *****
now modernly the court must get a signature because parties are assumed to be lying sacks of shit that hide serves. lawyers are known cheat whenever possible.
in england they are trying a new law which assumes parties to be faithful and can do trials by telephone until either party complains good faith has been comprimised. don't try that in fairfax!
but in the old day, a runner would be sent to verify the person knew and they'd have to walk immediately to the judge. the judge would before other charges pense who was lying about service and refusing to mediate ... well see examples.
Don't try any of it in fairfax. However an adult can serve for you. Bring your copies to the clerk for a stamping. Have the person get the paper signed at delivery (you need copies). hell have a notary look at it if you want. In the end the judge has to be assured all parties (both legal teams and the county) have copies that show each partied agreed they had got a copy, the same copy. It all must be in a docket (the courts file room) and a court day must be scheduled or the judge is "unaware" of any of it (really? he's a gov asshole dodging a suit is more likely, in fairfax that is). You have to wait for defense to respond before any actual trial, pre-trial motions. If they do: modernly they are sacks of shit and won't.
Are you sure you don't just want to get a mediator? Today's gov is bound to make you wish you'd tried, I warn.
part 3
---------------------------
Origins of law was maybe commercial law which is "good faith" (all business is assumed in good faith unless otherwise agreed upon or shown against). Also law protected: town, citizens, and lastly chatels (possessions).
* by that time i'll be starved. if i had the time i could xxx and be done and happy. time is emergency, need, and money.
* armed militia (police) were not allowed to bring a person to court UNLESS already it had been proven the person was tampering with court procedure / refused to go willingly or immediately. not even in murder cases, because who was the one doing the lying and murdering was not known at the time of complaint: it was yet to be shown who. a person then and now could be "a setup". or end up dead before they got to trail (ie, the real murderer has the police kill the accused, then the town might sleep well on the fact nothign had gone wrong.)
* Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat - Impunity always leads to greater crimes. allowing one party to be assumed "the law" and the other as not before the trial, is impugnity. crime breeds did you know? by family yes. the rich or evil can pose as authority and buy police and write rules and lie: exactly why using militia before trial was (is, check Napoleanic code too, and UDHR) is not allowed (without warrant which imputes evidence and need, an emergency).
* repeat. it had been and technically still is illegal to use weapons and imprison people before a verdict. and they have a right to a jury which is a mandate upon the judge himself.
** the reason was time and cost to the city. at one time greeks were more liberal and they attended trial like today we do the movies: it was the news, the entertainment, and they got to vote as jury.
*** parting comments were allowed and the judge sometimes owed the reason for the verdict. before roman politicians corrupted the system judges could be put to death if they ruled in a case they profited from. it was clear no one could vote in a biased manner or abuse the courts for fraud: the rule held more strictly to those most entrusted.
**** a party that refused to mediate was view suspiciously during reasoned debate (trial)
***** the verdcit is the chart. it is still illegal for a prosecutor to intentionally "elevate charges". in the past there WAS NO CHARGE except that set forth by the judge by the verdict. for ex, one might suspect another of a kind of theft however by review of the judge maybe it was not theft at all that occurred. before trial there were suspicions and they could not be used as defamations to bias the court or jury. today the gov itself is the worst breaker of this law: they use the news to advertise their position in court and stain the image of who they prosecute
****** Dept. of Justice (or is it Delay of Justice) recently, 1998 was it? installed microsoft computers by contract and delayed trials out to a month on average. this is a kind of time attack by gov workers against civilians they are charging or denying justice to. Clinton was accused and was NOT allowed to delay court, it in his famous case, so the story went, while DOJ was doing absolutely the opposite.
******* There is no city feudalism and facism if the court allows liars: the court itself is then a veil of theives and murderers, ie, a Harod or Persecusias (persecution) or even Dr. Mengola.
example
-----------------------------
Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare se ipsum - No one is allowed to incapacitate h
imself.
Now why would they need and have an allowed and preprepared court argument such as that? Becasue it had been tried often to trick the court (in this case to claim damage one did to himself) and found out!
These people who worked on early law knew the tricks of gov and false prosecution and had frequently dealt with it. So did Thomas Jefferson. They were not the freeloaders of their day but the designers of their day.
Little understood about the intent of structured debate was avoiding false rulings (which would come back into court and cause wasted time and money) and MORESO to avoid circular arguments (allowing legal idiots to waste allot of time arguing somethign a scientist could put their finger on in two seconds flat to spend time more wisely. structured reasoning, aka, debate, fair debate. debate a town can afford without starving.)
sources
----------------------------
so says the book of "i told you so" and "duh, who didn't know that?". scientific reasoning of the day.
oh. no i mean of the 12 tables of very early greek law, greek literature, the [21] rules of equity (rules of the court, the italian was taken from allowed arguments/reasonings of court), first 50 years of roman law, science papers of logic, Black's law, Napoleanic law, UDHR, the federalist papers, DOI, Constitution (and other founding docs). the rules of equity and allot of Blacks are still hid in subsections federal legislation if one looks for it. they were limited by hacks to apply to very particular things: yet they are there in plain and easily read print.
But the laws are not in gov science books that teach the opposite. What do you know harvard publishers / debate society are democrat sacks of shit, after all !
In other words anything up to the cheating days of taft and graft, and infamously 1998 under the table money laundering politics and Wordpad'ed hacked legislation. The laws were there. They were used in cases faithfully: there is not a history of "gov ignores law and does whatever it wants". One can look back and see that's a patent lie. Law has had good and bad times maybe never so bad as now (and so is pay disparity): usually war and lawlessness in courts go together in time, i'll not assume they cause one another but it's a thought.
Not that the law was always followed: there were wars, which is when cases go beyond court.
btw the law must be plain and clear. some of today's legislation is "scotts law" and has no sure interpretation (gov always wins). that's already illegal. written law must be plain and clear, is the law.
=========================================
Among the traditional maxims are:
* 1 Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.
* 2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
* 3 Equity delights in equality
* 4 One who seeks equity must do equity
* 5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
* 6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
* 7 Equity acts in personam.
* 8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
* 9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
* 10 One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
* 11 Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
* 12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
* 13 Equity follows the law
* 14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
* 15 Between equal equities the law will prevail
* 16 Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
* 17 Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
* 18 Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
* 19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
9Cepd
()
Date: March 21, 2014 08:15PM
did you mediate yet ?
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
WK9cY
()
Date: March 21, 2014 08:17PM
9Cepd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> did you mediate yet ?
if you avoid being civil and mediating i automatically suspect a problem
is there a reason i shouldn't ?
-------------------------------------------------------
> did you mediate yet ?
if you avoid being civil and mediating i automatically suspect a problem
is there a reason i shouldn't ?
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
Pie?
()
Date: March 21, 2014 09:49PM
Mr. Answer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375
> 105820974944592307816406286
> 20899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384
> 4609550582231725359408128481
> 11745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442
> 8810975665933446128475648233
> 78678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821
> 3393607260249141273724587006
> 60631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036
> 0011330530548820466521384146
> 95194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261
> 1793105118548074462379962749
> 56735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065
> 6643086021394946395224737190
> 70217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766
> 9405132000568127145263560827
> 78577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014
> 6549585371050792279689258923
> 54201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996
> 0518707211349999998372978049
>
> per hour.
Everyone loves pi!
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375
> 105820974944592307816406286
> 20899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384
> 4609550582231725359408128481
> 11745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442
> 8810975665933446128475648233
> 78678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821
> 3393607260249141273724587006
> 60631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036
> 0011330530548820466521384146
> 95194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261
> 1793105118548074462379962749
> 56735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065
> 6643086021394946395224737190
> 70217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766
> 9405132000568127145263560827
> 78577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014
> 6549585371050792279689258923
> 54201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996
> 0518707211349999998372978049
>
> per hour.
Everyone loves pi!
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
FFX Resident
()
Date: May 22, 2014 09:28PM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
FFX Resident
()
Date: May 24, 2014 12:50AM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
Svennestle off yourself
()
Date: May 24, 2014 02:30AM
aging debbie does dallas fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> part 1: background of serving process
> part 2: answer
> part 3: appendix
> part 4: appendix example structured debate
> part 5: appendix sources
>
> Lex necessitatis est lex temporis i.e. instantis -
> The law of necessity is the law of time, that is
> time present *
>
> The old law is you talk to the judge if you have a
> case (or citation, or nothing).
>
> ONLY the injured party could do so (yes, it's
> still in Black's law). A politician who was not
> injured? No. A gov worker? No. The injured
> party must have tried to mediate first and report
> having done so ****
>
> You'd serve notice yourself or send a person to
> say the judge said they must come. If they are
> not there you leave it at their door. If it is
> windy, nail it to the door (this imputes
> responsibility).
>
> The person upon first getting notice must walk
> immediately to the court to give an extemporaneous
> account to the judge (ie, to stop the complaint
> from going forward, or maybe to be held) with both
> parties present and no lawyers **
>
> DELAY OF JUSTICE IS INJURY by time and etc. DELAY
> was not allowed. President Clinton was charged
> and lost to a delay charge remember? ie a person
> could go poor or starve, loose business or
> happiness, due to delay ******
>
> If there is legal question debated, there is a
> trial (lawyers are disliked but allowed).
>
> "scheduling trial a month away" was not allowed
> infact the first day both parties had walked into
> the town there had to be a verdict before dark*
>
> Tampering with court proceeding (ie accosting the
> person leaving a court notice) was dealt with
> heavily, possibly by death or expulsion.
>
> A person in (in good standing) who works with the
> courts and does not tamper and promised to
> continue working with the city, was treated
> equitably by the courts.
>
> There is no such thing as "prosecutor" and
> defender. In every arguement there is assumed two
> sides both which must be heard and proved. In
> most cases there should be cross-complaints and no
> one to call prosecutor or defender.
>
> The full truth the whole truth and nothing but the
> truth. Anything else is tampering and can meet
> severe penalty if proven. *******
>
> The rules of equity were allowed arguments, they
> were equity courts, and our United States Supreme
> Court still carries the name on the letter head of
> it's rules.
>
> the verdict had to give equity to both parties for
> a better future but there are too many rules to
> explain on that point. certainly the penalty must
> fit the law broken, no more than that***
>
> the verdict held until any next verdict was made
> (this was allowed however one judge would honor
> the juristiction and wishes of the other to stay
> civil about a matter)
>
>
> part 2
> --------------------------
> this new crap that a gov worker must serve the
> notice for you is total contrivance to create cush
> jobs "for the elite". also it was challenged in
> court as being a gov mandate and the gov did not
> defend it's position, by me
>
> however if there is a "no contact" warrant you
> should leave the message or have someone else
> leave it: to avoid any civil unrest anyway
>
> it was illegal to defame the other party by
> decrying to the town (except for plain proven
> fact) before presented in court. that included yet
> to be awarded charges *****
>
> now modernly the court must get a signature
> because parties are assumed to be lying sacks of
> shit that hide serves. lawyers are known cheat
> whenever possible.
>
> in england they are trying a new law which assumes
> parties to be faithful and can do trials by
> telephone until either party complains good faith
> has been comprimised. don't try that in fairfax!
>
> but in the old day, a runner would be sent to
> verify the person knew and they'd have to walk
> immediately to the judge. the judge would before
> other charges pense who was lying about service
> and refusing to mediate ... well see examples.
>
> Don't try any of it in fairfax. However an adult
> can serve for you. Bring your copies to the clerk
> for a stamping. Have the person get the paper
> signed at delivery (you need copies). hell have a
> notary look at it if you want. In the end the
> judge has to be assured all parties (both legal
> teams and the county) have copies that show each
> partied agreed they had got a copy, the same copy.
> It all must be in a docket (the courts file room)
> and a court day must be scheduled or the judge is
> "unaware" of any of it (really? he's a gov
> asshole dodging a suit is more likely, in fairfax
> that is). You have to wait for defense to respond
> before any actual trial, pre-trial motions. If
> they do: modernly they are sacks of shit and
> won't.
>
> Are you sure you don't just want to get a
> mediator? Today's gov is bound to make you wish
> you'd tried, I warn.
>
>
> part 3
> ---------------------------
> Origins of law was maybe commercial law which is
> "good faith" (all business is assumed in good
> faith unless otherwise agreed upon or shown
> against). Also law protected: town, citizens, and
> lastly chatels (possessions).
>
> * by that time i'll be starved. if i had the time
> i could xxx and be done and happy. time is
> emergency, need, and money.
>
> * armed militia (police) were not allowed to bring
> a person to court UNLESS already it had been
> proven the person was tampering with court
> procedure / refused to go willingly or
> immediately. not even in murder cases, because
> who was the one doing the lying and murdering was
> not known at the time of complaint: it was yet to
> be shown who. a person then and now could be "a
> setup". or end up dead before they got to trail
> (ie, the real murderer has the police kill the
> accused, then the town might sleep well on the
> fact nothign had gone wrong.)
>
> * Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat - Impunity
> always leads to greater crimes. allowing one
> party to be assumed "the law" and the other as not
> before the trial, is impugnity. crime breeds did
> you know? by family yes. the rich or evil can
> pose as authority and buy police and write rules
> and lie: exactly why using militia before trial
> was (is, check Napoleanic code too, and UDHR) is
> not allowed (without warrant which imputes
> evidence and need, an emergency).
>
> * repeat. it had been and technically still is
> illegal to use weapons and imprison people before
> a verdict. and they have a right to a jury which
> is a mandate upon the judge himself.
>
> ** the reason was time and cost to the city. at
> one time greeks were more liberal and they
> attended trial like today we do the movies: it was
> the news, the entertainment, and they got to vote
> as jury.
>
> *** parting comments were allowed and the judge
> sometimes owed the reason for the verdict. before
> roman politicians corrupted the system judges
> could be put to death if they ruled in a case they
> profited from. it was clear no one could vote in
> a biased manner or abuse the courts for fraud: the
> rule held more strictly to those most entrusted.
>
> **** a party that refused to mediate was view
> suspiciously during reasoned debate (trial)
>
> ***** the verdcit is the chart. it is still
> illegal for a prosecutor to intentionally "elevate
> charges". in the past there WAS NO CHARGE except
> that set forth by the judge by the verdict. for
> ex, one might suspect another of a kind of theft
> however by review of the judge maybe it was not
> theft at all that occurred. before trial there
> were suspicions and they could not be used as
> defamations to bias the court or jury. today the
> gov itself is the worst breaker of this law: they
> use the news to advertise their position in court
> and stain the image of who they prosecute
>
> ****** Dept. of Justice (or is it Delay of
> Justice) recently, 1998 was it? installed
> microsoft computers by contract and delayed trials
> out to a month on average. this is a kind of time
> attack by gov workers against civilians they are
> charging or denying justice to. Clinton was
> accused and was NOT allowed to delay court, it in
> his famous case, so the story went, while DOJ was
> doing absolutely the opposite.
>
> ******* There is no city feudalism and facism if
> the court allows liars: the court itself is then a
> veil of theives and murderers, ie, a Harod or
> Persecusias (persecution) or even Dr. Mengola.
>
>
> example
> -----------------------------
>
> Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare se ipsum - No
> one is allowed to incapacitate h
> imself.
>
> Now why would they need and have an allowed and
> preprepared court argument such as that? Becasue
> it had been tried often to trick the court (in
> this case to claim damage one did to himself) and
> found out!
>
> These people who worked on early law knew the
> tricks of gov and false prosecution and had
> frequently dealt with it. So did Thomas
> Jefferson. They were not the freeloaders of their
> day but the designers of their day.
>
> Little understood about the intent of structured
> debate was avoiding false rulings (which would
> come back into court and cause wasted time and
> money) and MORESO to avoid circular arguments
> (allowing legal idiots to waste allot of time
> arguing somethign a scientist could put their
> finger on in two seconds flat to spend time more
> wisely. structured reasoning, aka, debate, fair
> debate. debate a town can afford without
> starving.)
>
> sources
> ----------------------------
> so says the book of "i told you so" and "duh, who
> didn't know that?". scientific reasoning of the
> day.
>
> oh. no i mean of the 12 tables of very early greek
> law, greek literature, the [21] rules of equity
> (rules of the court, the italian was taken from
> allowed arguments/reasonings of court), first 50
> years of roman law, science papers of logic,
> Black's law, Napoleanic law, UDHR, the federalist
> papers, DOI, Constitution (and other founding
> docs). the rules of equity and allot of Blacks
> are still hid in subsections federal legislation
> if one looks for it. they were limited by hacks
> to apply to very particular things: yet they are
> there in plain and easily read print.
>
> But the laws are not in gov science books that
> teach the opposite. What do you know harvard
> publishers / debate society are democrat sacks of
> shit, after all !
>
> In other words anything up to the cheating days of
> taft and graft, and infamously 1998 under the
> table money laundering politics and Wordpad'ed
> hacked legislation. The laws were there. They
> were used in cases faithfully: there is not a
> history of "gov ignores law and does whatever it
> wants". One can look back and see that's a patent
> lie. Law has had good and bad times maybe never
> so bad as now (and so is pay disparity): usually
> war and lawlessness in courts go together in time,
> i'll not assume they cause one another but it's a
> thought.
>
> Not that the law was always followed: there were
> wars, which is when cases go beyond court.
>
> btw the law must be plain and clear. some of
> today's legislation is "scotts law" and has no
> sure interpretation (gov always wins). that's
> already illegal. written law must be plain and
> clear, is the law.
>
> =========================================
> Among the traditional maxims are:
>
> * 1 Equity regards as done that which ought to
> be done.
> * 2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be
> without a remedy
> * 3 Equity delights in equality
> * 4 One who seeks equity must do equity
> * 5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who
> slumber on their rights
> * 6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an
> obligation
> * 7 Equity acts in personam.
> * 8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
> * 9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
> * 10 One who comes into equity must come with
> clean hands
> * 11 Equity delights to do justice and not by
> halves
> * 12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a
> multiplicity of suits
> * 13 Equity follows the law
> * 14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
> * 15 Between equal equities the law will
> prevail
> * 16 Between equal equities the first in order
> of time shall prevail
> * 17 Equity will not complete an imperfect
> gift
> * 18 Equity will not allow a statute to be
> used as a cloak for fraud
> * 19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for
> want of a trustee
Seriously sevennestle?!? Up the dose on your meds.
-------------------------------------------------------
> part 1: background of serving process
> part 2: answer
> part 3: appendix
> part 4: appendix example structured debate
> part 5: appendix sources
>
> Lex necessitatis est lex temporis i.e. instantis -
> The law of necessity is the law of time, that is
> time present *
>
> The old law is you talk to the judge if you have a
> case (or citation, or nothing).
>
> ONLY the injured party could do so (yes, it's
> still in Black's law). A politician who was not
> injured? No. A gov worker? No. The injured
> party must have tried to mediate first and report
> having done so ****
>
> You'd serve notice yourself or send a person to
> say the judge said they must come. If they are
> not there you leave it at their door. If it is
> windy, nail it to the door (this imputes
> responsibility).
>
> The person upon first getting notice must walk
> immediately to the court to give an extemporaneous
> account to the judge (ie, to stop the complaint
> from going forward, or maybe to be held) with both
> parties present and no lawyers **
>
> DELAY OF JUSTICE IS INJURY by time and etc. DELAY
> was not allowed. President Clinton was charged
> and lost to a delay charge remember? ie a person
> could go poor or starve, loose business or
> happiness, due to delay ******
>
> If there is legal question debated, there is a
> trial (lawyers are disliked but allowed).
>
> "scheduling trial a month away" was not allowed
> infact the first day both parties had walked into
> the town there had to be a verdict before dark*
>
> Tampering with court proceeding (ie accosting the
> person leaving a court notice) was dealt with
> heavily, possibly by death or expulsion.
>
> A person in (in good standing) who works with the
> courts and does not tamper and promised to
> continue working with the city, was treated
> equitably by the courts.
>
> There is no such thing as "prosecutor" and
> defender. In every arguement there is assumed two
> sides both which must be heard and proved. In
> most cases there should be cross-complaints and no
> one to call prosecutor or defender.
>
> The full truth the whole truth and nothing but the
> truth. Anything else is tampering and can meet
> severe penalty if proven. *******
>
> The rules of equity were allowed arguments, they
> were equity courts, and our United States Supreme
> Court still carries the name on the letter head of
> it's rules.
>
> the verdict had to give equity to both parties for
> a better future but there are too many rules to
> explain on that point. certainly the penalty must
> fit the law broken, no more than that***
>
> the verdict held until any next verdict was made
> (this was allowed however one judge would honor
> the juristiction and wishes of the other to stay
> civil about a matter)
>
>
> part 2
> --------------------------
> this new crap that a gov worker must serve the
> notice for you is total contrivance to create cush
> jobs "for the elite". also it was challenged in
> court as being a gov mandate and the gov did not
> defend it's position, by me
>
> however if there is a "no contact" warrant you
> should leave the message or have someone else
> leave it: to avoid any civil unrest anyway
>
> it was illegal to defame the other party by
> decrying to the town (except for plain proven
> fact) before presented in court. that included yet
> to be awarded charges *****
>
> now modernly the court must get a signature
> because parties are assumed to be lying sacks of
> shit that hide serves. lawyers are known cheat
> whenever possible.
>
> in england they are trying a new law which assumes
> parties to be faithful and can do trials by
> telephone until either party complains good faith
> has been comprimised. don't try that in fairfax!
>
> but in the old day, a runner would be sent to
> verify the person knew and they'd have to walk
> immediately to the judge. the judge would before
> other charges pense who was lying about service
> and refusing to mediate ... well see examples.
>
> Don't try any of it in fairfax. However an adult
> can serve for you. Bring your copies to the clerk
> for a stamping. Have the person get the paper
> signed at delivery (you need copies). hell have a
> notary look at it if you want. In the end the
> judge has to be assured all parties (both legal
> teams and the county) have copies that show each
> partied agreed they had got a copy, the same copy.
> It all must be in a docket (the courts file room)
> and a court day must be scheduled or the judge is
> "unaware" of any of it (really? he's a gov
> asshole dodging a suit is more likely, in fairfax
> that is). You have to wait for defense to respond
> before any actual trial, pre-trial motions. If
> they do: modernly they are sacks of shit and
> won't.
>
> Are you sure you don't just want to get a
> mediator? Today's gov is bound to make you wish
> you'd tried, I warn.
>
>
> part 3
> ---------------------------
> Origins of law was maybe commercial law which is
> "good faith" (all business is assumed in good
> faith unless otherwise agreed upon or shown
> against). Also law protected: town, citizens, and
> lastly chatels (possessions).
>
> * by that time i'll be starved. if i had the time
> i could xxx and be done and happy. time is
> emergency, need, and money.
>
> * armed militia (police) were not allowed to bring
> a person to court UNLESS already it had been
> proven the person was tampering with court
> procedure / refused to go willingly or
> immediately. not even in murder cases, because
> who was the one doing the lying and murdering was
> not known at the time of complaint: it was yet to
> be shown who. a person then and now could be "a
> setup". or end up dead before they got to trail
> (ie, the real murderer has the police kill the
> accused, then the town might sleep well on the
> fact nothign had gone wrong.)
>
> * Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat - Impunity
> always leads to greater crimes. allowing one
> party to be assumed "the law" and the other as not
> before the trial, is impugnity. crime breeds did
> you know? by family yes. the rich or evil can
> pose as authority and buy police and write rules
> and lie: exactly why using militia before trial
> was (is, check Napoleanic code too, and UDHR) is
> not allowed (without warrant which imputes
> evidence and need, an emergency).
>
> * repeat. it had been and technically still is
> illegal to use weapons and imprison people before
> a verdict. and they have a right to a jury which
> is a mandate upon the judge himself.
>
> ** the reason was time and cost to the city. at
> one time greeks were more liberal and they
> attended trial like today we do the movies: it was
> the news, the entertainment, and they got to vote
> as jury.
>
> *** parting comments were allowed and the judge
> sometimes owed the reason for the verdict. before
> roman politicians corrupted the system judges
> could be put to death if they ruled in a case they
> profited from. it was clear no one could vote in
> a biased manner or abuse the courts for fraud: the
> rule held more strictly to those most entrusted.
>
> **** a party that refused to mediate was view
> suspiciously during reasoned debate (trial)
>
> ***** the verdcit is the chart. it is still
> illegal for a prosecutor to intentionally "elevate
> charges". in the past there WAS NO CHARGE except
> that set forth by the judge by the verdict. for
> ex, one might suspect another of a kind of theft
> however by review of the judge maybe it was not
> theft at all that occurred. before trial there
> were suspicions and they could not be used as
> defamations to bias the court or jury. today the
> gov itself is the worst breaker of this law: they
> use the news to advertise their position in court
> and stain the image of who they prosecute
>
> ****** Dept. of Justice (or is it Delay of
> Justice) recently, 1998 was it? installed
> microsoft computers by contract and delayed trials
> out to a month on average. this is a kind of time
> attack by gov workers against civilians they are
> charging or denying justice to. Clinton was
> accused and was NOT allowed to delay court, it in
> his famous case, so the story went, while DOJ was
> doing absolutely the opposite.
>
> ******* There is no city feudalism and facism if
> the court allows liars: the court itself is then a
> veil of theives and murderers, ie, a Harod or
> Persecusias (persecution) or even Dr. Mengola.
>
>
> example
> -----------------------------
>
> Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare se ipsum - No
> one is allowed to incapacitate h
> imself.
>
> Now why would they need and have an allowed and
> preprepared court argument such as that? Becasue
> it had been tried often to trick the court (in
> this case to claim damage one did to himself) and
> found out!
>
> These people who worked on early law knew the
> tricks of gov and false prosecution and had
> frequently dealt with it. So did Thomas
> Jefferson. They were not the freeloaders of their
> day but the designers of their day.
>
> Little understood about the intent of structured
> debate was avoiding false rulings (which would
> come back into court and cause wasted time and
> money) and MORESO to avoid circular arguments
> (allowing legal idiots to waste allot of time
> arguing somethign a scientist could put their
> finger on in two seconds flat to spend time more
> wisely. structured reasoning, aka, debate, fair
> debate. debate a town can afford without
> starving.)
>
> sources
> ----------------------------
> so says the book of "i told you so" and "duh, who
> didn't know that?". scientific reasoning of the
> day.
>
> oh. no i mean of the 12 tables of very early greek
> law, greek literature, the [21] rules of equity
> (rules of the court, the italian was taken from
> allowed arguments/reasonings of court), first 50
> years of roman law, science papers of logic,
> Black's law, Napoleanic law, UDHR, the federalist
> papers, DOI, Constitution (and other founding
> docs). the rules of equity and allot of Blacks
> are still hid in subsections federal legislation
> if one looks for it. they were limited by hacks
> to apply to very particular things: yet they are
> there in plain and easily read print.
>
> But the laws are not in gov science books that
> teach the opposite. What do you know harvard
> publishers / debate society are democrat sacks of
> shit, after all !
>
> In other words anything up to the cheating days of
> taft and graft, and infamously 1998 under the
> table money laundering politics and Wordpad'ed
> hacked legislation. The laws were there. They
> were used in cases faithfully: there is not a
> history of "gov ignores law and does whatever it
> wants". One can look back and see that's a patent
> lie. Law has had good and bad times maybe never
> so bad as now (and so is pay disparity): usually
> war and lawlessness in courts go together in time,
> i'll not assume they cause one another but it's a
> thought.
>
> Not that the law was always followed: there were
> wars, which is when cases go beyond court.
>
> btw the law must be plain and clear. some of
> today's legislation is "scotts law" and has no
> sure interpretation (gov always wins). that's
> already illegal. written law must be plain and
> clear, is the law.
>
> =========================================
> Among the traditional maxims are:
>
> * 1 Equity regards as done that which ought to
> be done.
> * 2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be
> without a remedy
> * 3 Equity delights in equality
> * 4 One who seeks equity must do equity
> * 5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who
> slumber on their rights
> * 6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an
> obligation
> * 7 Equity acts in personam.
> * 8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
> * 9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
> * 10 One who comes into equity must come with
> clean hands
> * 11 Equity delights to do justice and not by
> halves
> * 12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a
> multiplicity of suits
> * 13 Equity follows the law
> * 14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
> * 15 Between equal equities the law will
> prevail
> * 16 Between equal equities the first in order
> of time shall prevail
> * 17 Equity will not complete an imperfect
> gift
> * 18 Equity will not allow a statute to be
> used as a cloak for fraud
> * 19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for
> want of a trustee
Seriously sevennestle?!? Up the dose on your meds.
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
FFX Resident ()
()
Date: May 24, 2014 03:42PM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
FFX Resident
()
Date: May 25, 2014 01:14AM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
mEWG9
()
Date: May 25, 2014 02:40PM
AH. but virginia and the federal courts
got a lawsuit saying "laws against service of process" are challenged and they failed to respond
furthermore anyone can serve process (except the person lodging it). anyone. under current law
----------------------
so why pay up to $2000 for delivery ?
total scam. always gov rats and politicos end up as "process servers" for insider cases
can nail a letter to a door. what a cover up.
got a lawsuit saying "laws against service of process" are challenged and they failed to respond
furthermore anyone can serve process (except the person lodging it). anyone. under current law
----------------------
so why pay up to $2000 for delivery ?
total scam. always gov rats and politicos end up as "process servers" for insider cases
can nail a letter to a door. what a cover up.
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
mEWG9
()
Date: May 25, 2014 06:50PM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
Check em out
()
Date: September 08, 2014 10:19PM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
Check em out
()
Date: October 23, 2014 12:02AM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
Re: Anyone Need Legal Process Served, call this company
Posted by:
check em out
()
Date: October 23, 2014 12:03AM
KH & Associates LLC
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
They will take care of you
Web: http://khassociates.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KHAssociates
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KH-Associates-LLC/728238243861808?ref=hl
Instagram: http://instagram.com/kh_associates
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/khassociates
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/posts, https://plus.google.com/+KHAssociatesAlexandria/about?hl=en
They will take care of you