Click here to go to our new forums at
If you are a Forumosan Regular, when you log in for the FIRST TIME, you must RESET your password by using the Password Recovery system.

Usernames on the new forums must not contain any SPACES and must end with LETTER or a NUMBER; if yours does, you will be prompted to change your Username
Contact us at admin(at)forumosa(dot)com or @forumosa on Twitter or on our Facebook Page if you have any questions or problems logging back in

Title Opinion

Welcome to the Open Forum - the discussion forum for topics that don't quite fit anywhere else. Fair warning: Posts may be moved at the moderators' discretion to a more appropriate forum. Posts that are especially silly will probably end up in either the Fun and Games Forum or the Temporary Forum.

Moderators: Tempo Gain, Rockefeller

Forum rules
Posts may be moved at the moderators' discretion to a more appropriate forum. Posts that are especially silly will probably end up in either the Fun and Games Forum or the Temporary Forum.

Title Opinion

Postby <CERCLA> » 07 Mar 2002, 20:20

Besides, you are really off to an inauspicious start. Boxer's Rebellion??? Last time I check, all the pugilists who participate in the Rebellion were all butchered@@

Title Opinion

Postby <liquidnitrogen> » 07 Mar 2002, 20:58

C is right. Let people speak their mind. Dude, it's not like you never badmouth taiwan yourself [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Hey, I just found out that "Exclusive Report" (or "Scoops Weekly") owns some land in Monterey Park. If we can get a contingency from shium meifong, perhaps we can lodge a suit in the Southern District. I am not too worry about the jurisdictional defense, because I know for a fact that they conduct enough business here to give me a general jurisdiction. The problem that I am having is with choice of law and forum non conveniens. In put needed. Also the elements for defamation and slander are roughly the same between Taiwan and US right? Is truth an absolute defense under the taiwanese law for public figures?

Title Opinion

Postby <CERCLA> » 07 Mar 2002, 21:04

I seriously hope that you are joking [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
I personally would have gone for intrusion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion where falsity is not a requisite element [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Title Opinion

Postby <liquid cocaine> » 07 Mar 2002, 22:44

dude, I don't see how u can survive an FNC challenge
<liquid cocaine>

Title Opinion

Postby <liquid cocaine-not> » 08 Mar 2002, 00:14

And where's my car?
<liquid cocaine-not>

Title Opinion

Postby deadpledge » 08 Mar 2002, 01:24

Hi Sandman:
NO... I didn't know about landlots in Xindian. The only reason why I know of the condition is Tamsui was because a month ago I was actually going to by a condo there and I went to the municipal office to check the survey...etc. @@ It was just uncanny how the title was clouded left and right and there's all kinds of zoning violation@@

The rest of you:
behave. esp. liquid cocaine. Please no more legal urban legends on this forum [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Title Opinion

Postby wolf_reinhold » 08 Mar 2002, 09:28

As a former title-examiner for oil and gas ownership (a landman for those who know what that is), I am wondering what the real problem is here.
Can the original poster distill the facts down to a brief?
User avatar
"Drinks for the House!"
Posts: 4117
Joined: 01 May 2001, 16:01
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand

Title Opinion

Postby Angst » 08 Mar 2002, 09:33

The original poster was having a schizophrenic conversation with himself. Deadpledge,liquid cocaine,liquidnitrogen, jakjak, CERCLA, Liquid cocaine-not are all the same person. I couldn't discern a point either. Mind if I close this thread?

Title Opinion

Postby deadpledge » 08 Mar 2002, 16:13

Speaking of jurisdictional defense, have you guys read this case before?
U. S. ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa., 1971).
Civil rights action against Satan and his servants who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and caused his downfall, wherein plaintiff prayed for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court, Weber, J., held that plaintiff would not be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis who in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendant, propriety of class action, and plaintiff's failure to include instructions for directions as to service of process.
Prayer denied.

WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.

   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.

Return to Open Forum

Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 0 guests