Please pass nationally
#491
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hi Jeff,
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
#492
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hi Jeff,
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
#493
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hi Jeff,
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
#494
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
If you were old enough to have experienced history, you'd know the
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
#495
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
If you were old enough to have experienced history, you'd know the
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
#496
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
If you were old enough to have experienced history, you'd know the
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
#497
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
If you were old enough to have experienced history, you'd know the
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
taxes will be raised unbelievably high, and if you think we're at War
how, wait for a Democrat President, Like Eisenhower in Vietnam, the sh*t
didn't hit the fan until Kennedy and Johnson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
> needed in r.a.m.j+w.
>
> Jeff
#498
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hey Bill, the courts do not investigate crimes, that's the venue of the
executive branch, and in cases where the executive branch may be involved,
or give the appearance of being involved, a special prosecutor's office. I
guess not being part of the "depends set" I can still remember that. It must
be a bitch not being able to see a newspaper anymore or worse yet forgetting
what you've read or heard 3 seconds after your lips stop moving.
BTW, you seem to be drooling in your keyboard again, the sentences you type
are coming out all garbled and difficult to follow. You should probably
change your bib.
Jeff
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412BA53D.1291A6E0@***.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> "(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
> What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
> makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
> was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
> your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
> criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
> apparently they are.
> I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
> make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
> any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
> person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
> ------ing these lies, that have no fact.
executive branch, and in cases where the executive branch may be involved,
or give the appearance of being involved, a special prosecutor's office. I
guess not being part of the "depends set" I can still remember that. It must
be a bitch not being able to see a newspaper anymore or worse yet forgetting
what you've read or heard 3 seconds after your lips stop moving.
BTW, you seem to be drooling in your keyboard again, the sentences you type
are coming out all garbled and difficult to follow. You should probably
change your bib.
Jeff
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412BA53D.1291A6E0@***.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> "(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
> What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
> makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
> was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
> your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
> criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
> apparently they are.
> I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
> make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
> any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
> person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
> ------ing these lies, that have no fact.
#499
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hey Bill, the courts do not investigate crimes, that's the venue of the
executive branch, and in cases where the executive branch may be involved,
or give the appearance of being involved, a special prosecutor's office. I
guess not being part of the "depends set" I can still remember that. It must
be a bitch not being able to see a newspaper anymore or worse yet forgetting
what you've read or heard 3 seconds after your lips stop moving.
BTW, you seem to be drooling in your keyboard again, the sentences you type
are coming out all garbled and difficult to follow. You should probably
change your bib.
Jeff
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412BA53D.1291A6E0@***.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> "(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
> What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
> makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
> was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
> your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
> criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
> apparently they are.
> I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
> make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
> any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
> person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
> ------ing these lies, that have no fact.
executive branch, and in cases where the executive branch may be involved,
or give the appearance of being involved, a special prosecutor's office. I
guess not being part of the "depends set" I can still remember that. It must
be a bitch not being able to see a newspaper anymore or worse yet forgetting
what you've read or heard 3 seconds after your lips stop moving.
BTW, you seem to be drooling in your keyboard again, the sentences you type
are coming out all garbled and difficult to follow. You should probably
change your bib.
Jeff
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412BA53D.1291A6E0@***.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> "(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
> What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
> makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
> was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
> your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
> criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
> apparently they are.
> I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
> make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
> any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
> person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
> ------ing these lies, that have no fact.
#500
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hey Bill, the courts do not investigate crimes, that's the venue of the
executive branch, and in cases where the executive branch may be involved,
or give the appearance of being involved, a special prosecutor's office. I
guess not being part of the "depends set" I can still remember that. It must
be a bitch not being able to see a newspaper anymore or worse yet forgetting
what you've read or heard 3 seconds after your lips stop moving.
BTW, you seem to be drooling in your keyboard again, the sentences you type
are coming out all garbled and difficult to follow. You should probably
change your bib.
Jeff
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412BA53D.1291A6E0@***.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> "(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
> What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
> makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
> was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
> your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
> criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
> apparently they are.
> I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
> make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
> any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
> person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
> ------ing these lies, that have no fact.
executive branch, and in cases where the executive branch may be involved,
or give the appearance of being involved, a special prosecutor's office. I
guess not being part of the "depends set" I can still remember that. It must
be a bitch not being able to see a newspaper anymore or worse yet forgetting
what you've read or heard 3 seconds after your lips stop moving.
BTW, you seem to be drooling in your keyboard again, the sentences you type
are coming out all garbled and difficult to follow. You should probably
change your bib.
Jeff
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412BA53D.1291A6E0@***.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> "(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
> What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
> makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
> was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
> your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
> criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
> apparently they are.
> I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
> make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
> any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
> person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
> ------ing these lies, that have no fact.