LI Execution date for SK Lucas
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A state judge has scheduled a June 30 execution for convicted killer Henry Lee Lucas, who once confessed to a nationwide killing spree then recanted. Lucas, 61, was convicted of the 1979 rape and stabbing death of an unidentified female hitchhiker, dubbed ``orange socks'' for the only article of clothing she was wearing. Her nude body was found along Interstate 35 near Georgetown, north of Austin. State District Judge John Carter of Georgetown today scheduled Lucas to receive a lethal injection June 30. Lucas' case has been under appeal since 1990. Attorneys for Lucas claim he is innocent. They presented evidence in a special hearing several years ago that they say prove he was not even in Texas when the woman was killed. Lucas once claimed to have killed 600 people while hitchhiking across the country, but a special investigation by Attorney General Jim Mattox in 1986 showed he could not have committed the crimes. Lucas later recanted, saying he was trying to embarrass police and avoid a date with the executioner by helping solve other crimes. In the meantime, law enforcement authorities in 26 states accepted Lucas' confessions and closed their files on more than 200 murder cases. A native of Blacksburg, Va., Lucas began a life of crime in 1960 when he killed his mother, 74-year-old Viola Lucas, in Michigan. He was in and out of prisons and mental hospitals until his release in 1970. Lucas was convicted and sentenced to life in 1984 for the slaying of 15-year-old Becky Powell, his common-law wife, and he was given a 75- year prison term for the murder of 80-year-old Kate Rich of Ringgold, Texas. The movie ``Henry'' was based on Lucas' confessions, which, if true, would have made him the most prolific serial killer in the nation's history. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Mexican Judge frees alleged Killer of US man
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A Mexican judge on Tuesday once again freed a man accused of killing John Peter Zarate, a 40-year-old US real estate executive murdered in a taxicab holdup. Judge Vicente Hernandez "found no evidence" to uphold an arrest warrant against Alfonso Gonzalez Sanchez, known as "El Chuky," and ordered him freed unconditionally. Gonzalez Sanchez and three accomplices were arrested two weeks after the robbery but were freed by a judge who described him as a "modern Robin Hood," angering the United States and Mexicans fed up with crime. Judge Claudia Campuzano freed them for lack of evidence although they had confessed to the killing on December 15, 1997. A higher court later upheld her ruling but she was suspended for three months and replaced by Hernandez. Gonzalez Sanchez was re-arrested on February 10 and charged with robbery. Although the murder charges were dropped, Gonzalez Sanchez is unlikely to be freed as he still faces robbery charges. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Thursday Jokes
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JUDGE JUDY FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OF ZIPPERGATE !!!
Someone mistakenly leaves the cages open in the reptile
house at the Bronx Zoo and there are snakes slithering all over
the place.
Frantically, the keeper tries everything, but he cant get them
back in their cages. Finally he says, Quick, call a lawyer!
A lawyer? Why??
We need someone who speaks their langauge!
---
The Top 16 Ways to Celebrate Spring Internationally
16 RUSSIA: Get off the mile-long line for firewood; get in the
mile-long line for umbrellas.
15 HOLLAND: Annual Easter Clog Toss ("Watch out, Hans!")
14 VATICAN CITY: The Pope presides over the ceremonial casting
out the first sinner.
13 ISRAEL: Throw cute little stuffed animals filled with rocks
at the Palestinians.
12 LIECHTENSTEIN: Send annual "we're still a country" notification
to the U.N.
11 CHERNOBYL: Night Parade Of the Glow-In-The-Dark Chickens
10 JAKARTA: Child-Labor Factory #4 switches from making Kathie Lee
scarves to Nike running shoes.
9 TEHRAN: Can now attend "Death to America" rally in shorts.
8 BAGHDAD: Before inspectors begin their hunt, replace anthrax
eggs with slightly less nauseating Cadbury eggs.
7 PRAGUE: Tank tops (with real tanks).
6 TOKYO: Godzilla turns his fancy from a path of destruction to
thoughts of love.
5 FRANCE: French Army stocks up on white flags at annual White
Sale.
4 ENGLAND: Leichester Larry comes out of his flat and smiles.
If any teeth are straight, 6 more weeks of rain -- otherwise,
5.5 more weeks of rain.
3 IRELAND: Swimsuit issue of "Soccer Hooligan Illustrated" hits
newsstands.
2 BOSNIA: Annual switch to "Daylight Bombing Time" requires
setting your quality of life back another decade.
and the Number 1 Way to Celebrate Spring Internationally...
1 GERMANY: Order the flowers to bloom.
The top 10 things you'll never hear a man say:
10. Here honey, you use the remote.
9. You know, I'd like to see her again,
but her breasts are just too big.
8. Ooh, Antonio Banderas AND Brad Pitt?
That's one movie I gotta see!
7. While I'm up, can I get you anything?
6. Sex isn't that important; sometimes, I just want to be held.
5. Why don't you go to the mall with me
and help me pick out a pair of shoes?
4. Aww, forget Monday night football, let's watch Melrose Place.
3. Hey let me hold your purse while you try that on.
2. We never talk anymore.
1. Yes, Dogbyte: You may date my daughter!
-=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
The top 10 things you'll never hear a woman say:
10. What do you mean "today's our anniversary"?
9. Can we not talk to each other tonight? I'd rather just watch TV.
8. Ohh, this diamond is way too big!
7. And for our honeymoon we're going fishing in Alaska!
6. Can our relationship get a little more physical?
I'm tired of being "just friends".
5. Honey does this outfit make my butt look too small?
4. Aww, don't stop for directions,
I'm sure you'll be able to figure out how to get there.
3. Is that phone for me? Tell 'em I'm not here.
2. I don't care if it is on sale,
300 dollars is too much for a designer dress.
1. Hey, pull my finger!
---
TOP ELEVEN DOG AND CAT CHARACTERISTICS
==
11. Dogs come when you call them. Cats take a message and get back to
you.
10. Dogs look much better at the end of a leash.
9. Dogs will let you give them a bath without taking out a contract on
your life.
8. Dogs will bark to wake you up if the house is on fire. Cats will
quietly sneak out the back door.
7. Dogs will bring you your slippers or the evening newspaper. Cats
might bring you a dead mouse.
6. Dogs will play Frisbee with you all afternoon. Cats will take a
three-hour nap.
5. Dogs will sit on the car seat next to you. Cats have to have their
own private box or they will not go at all.
4. Dogs will greet you and lick your face when you come home from work.
Cats will be mad that you went to work at all.
3. Dogs will sit, lie down, and heel on command. Cats will smirk and
walk away.
2. Dogs will tilt their heads and listen whenever you talk. Cats will
yawn and close their eyes.
1. Dogs will give you unconditional love forever. Cats will make you pay
for every mistake you've ever made since the day you were born.
---
Top 10 Benefits From a White House Internship:
10. First-hand knowledge of domestic affairs
9. Pay is lousy, but the hush money is great
8. Gives new meaning to MTV slogan ``Rock the Vote''
7. Observe the President's commitment to young
people first
hand
6. Learn intricacies of statutory rape law
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len At 04:58 PM 4/1/1998 EST, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now. The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:23 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages. She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27. Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling. Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starrs office says the deal was never finalized. For the past 10 weeks, Starrs grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about it. Lewinsky Evidence Sought Finally, Jones lawyers have filed an appeal with the 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case. In an attempt to have the decision thrown out, they insisted, the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience. To alleviate concerns that allowing Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starrs criminal investigation, Jones attorneys have offered to postpone the trial. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron If, as the commentators say, she did make the right decision based on Arkansas law, then why should she recuse herself? She based her decision on the evidence so there was no bias. I bet those who didn't like the decision would not have felt she should recurse herself if she had let the trial go forward, despite it being a wrong *legal* decision. Unpopular *legal* decisions, if based on the law, are not biased, only those that cater to the politics of the time. jackief Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether this is the correct decision or not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions list.Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Len You are priceless!! jackief Leonard Booth wrote: Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I doubt I'll be the first to bring this to your attention, but the Federal Judge was appointed by Bush. Len At 04:33 PM 4/1/1998 -0800, you wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether this is the correct decision or not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions list.Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that we not speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew Cunanan a serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer it is idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never tried and convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath about a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue. How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the answers? I congratulate you on 100%. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh Terry Then, Thomas really is only a liar in your eyes, because you feel the "truth" is on Anita's side. Therefore, because you believe he is a liar, you feel free to call him a perjuror, despite the fact he has not been charged with it according to what you say. Before you jump up and down, I felt Anita was telling the truth and believed her, but that still does not give me or anyone the right to call him a perjuror if he wasn't convicted of perjury in a court of law--liar, a despicable person, yes, but not a perjuror. When you discuss a case, despite the verdict, an unbiased observer (as you put it) must stay objective and try to examine why that verdict was reached. That isn't easy, I admit, for most people to do and it sure don't make for winning popularity contests : ). So really in the end, what this boils down to is that you believe he is a liar and that makes it o.k. to state he is a perjuror. BTW, I flunked your test. The polygraph has less accuracy in detecting "truth" (as you call it) with innocent people. Cheers jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a perjuror. I am really curious?? jackief Really, Jackie? It is obvious to any unbiased observer, which I am not. I have never had anything but contempt for the toady that was put in charge of EEO by Reagan essentially to dismantle its operation nor for the intellectual flyweight who was unable to express the slightest defense of his "natural law" philosophy. But that has nothing whatever to do with his guilt in the matter. When two people tell directly opposing stories, when the normal human frailties of forgetfulness and imagination are not a factor, one must choose which to believe if there is to be any judgment of truth at all. It is rather easy to choose which one is most likely telling the truth when one is willing to take a polygraph and the other is not even independent of the results. But that is only a small part of the story. Anita Hill had told her story to others long before she was called upon to tell her story in public. She testified unwillingly. Anita Hill had to undergo the withering attack all women who have suffered from the sexual libido of men who cannot control their urges. She was called a sexually-repressed man-hungry lesbian all at once by the mentally-challenged Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. (No, Jackie, not in those words. There was that stuff coming in over the transom as the good senator from Wyoming liked to say.) David Brock, the recently canonized convert from his former rightwing hatchetman status, says everything is still all true. That even includes the silly story of the pubic hair on the homework paper of a student, though the student now says it was a hoax. Justice Thomas let his supporters do their work and remained silent. He refused to discuss anything, screaming only of another half-vast conspiracy. His silence speaks volumes just as it does these days in his robes on his throne in his kingdom. It is an obscenity this caricature sits in the seat of the magnificent Thurgood Marshall. Let me give you some homework, Jackie. You can do it silently. The test has only two questions and I will bet you or anyone else can get the answers. 1. A special prosecutor was appointed to find out which miscreants leaked the news of Anita Hill that led to the Thomas-Hill hearings. Did the honorable Democratic senators offer to take a polygraph as proposed by the special prosecutor so he could complete his investigation? Why or why not? 2. A coal miner in Virginia (Roger Coleman, I think) was convicted of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law and condemned to death. He is often cited as one of those most likely to be innocent. He steadfastly refused a lie detector test until the eve of his execution. What was the result of his polygraph? See how easy the test was. Bet you got all the right answers. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter:
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it does not constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort. That is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. Do you agree? Mornin' Terry, I think you need to read the decision. ...Mac Hi Mac, Here I will read it to you. This is extracted from the decision: "In addressing the issues in this case, the Court has viewed the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and given her the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences, which is required at this stage of the proceedings." Mornin', That does nothing to support your claim. There is nothing in her decision that warrants a charge of prejudice. ...Mac Hi Mac, That says the judge had to base her decision on whatever was presented by Paula Jones as factual. She determined that the actions of Clinton described by Jones were not outrageous conduct. Call it as you will. I call Wright's decision deeply prejudiced. It was more than "boorish and offensive" conduct when done by an employer against an employee. It was up to Judge Wright to determine whether such conduct constituted an actionable tort. It was not up to her to determine the truth of the charges. She decided a jury had no right to determine that because the conduct was not sufficiently gross to be actionable if it was precisely as described. Remember, Mac, you charged me with not reading the decision. Maybe you should look it over. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Clinton to Mac
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Make sure the Judge is a former student of yours ;-). Prior to committing acts appoint judges husband to semi-important post ;-). Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len No but I bet the "left wing wackos" can still contribute to the Clinton Defense Fund. Put your money where your mouth is. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Not Outrageous Enough Behavior
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well isn't that just wonderful. Let's all now expose ourselves to our employees and ask for oral sex because it's not outrageous conduct. Waitwe'll need to wait until we're on a business trip and have them summoned to our hotel rooms. What? You have no security personnel to fetch your intended victim...well darn, maybe the hotel security guard can fill in. attributed to Mary Keep it in your pants guys. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI marijuana legalization thing in the UK?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Jackie, Yes, please do. It would be enlightening to know what substances precede male hard drug use,and in what proportions, in the current studies. Thanks. Vi __ You wrote: If you like when I submit the quarterly summary, I can ask the program director if they are seeing similar patterns in hard drug, m.j. and alcohol use in their male population. _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Women and Crime
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Kathy, Sorry I inadvertently changed the subject line. There are exceptions to all rules, and , no, I do not think women should receive lighter sentences for abusing or killing children than men. Each case should be judged on its merits and the penalty "customized" to fit the situation and crime. So often women's darker crimes are based on survival, burn out or trying to please men, And there are some crimes the law is ill equipped to handle, such as the case of the young Asiatic wife betrayed by an adulterous and rejecting husband who in her torment and in compliance with her own customs, took their children into the ocean and drowned them. (This tragedy happened a few years ago in LA). Death penalty laws are too rigid and all encompassing at present. I maintain the day we end up with death rows of women and children awaiting execution will be a sorry day indeed. Vi __ _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:11:54 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOL...now I feel left out. Bill Bill, don't feel left out. These are mostly for get rich quick schemes and everyone knows you are already rich :-), the rest are for XXX porno sites, and we know that you are above such behavior :-) Ron Hi Ron, LOL...also, those people don't spam a person who contact them first. :) Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, I thought your phrasing was impeccable, as usual, and you are 100% correct in what you posted. :) The more I read about that 13 year old the more bizarre that case gets. Looks to me that not only the kid, but his father and step-father had a lot of problems. Too bad they can't see these things ahead of time and intercede. Also, I think that kids need to be sensitized to the fact that they should immediately report any comments from another kid that they plan to kill or hurt someone. Times really change. When I was a kid the worst that happened was a fist fight to settle differences. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:23:33 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I guess I did sort of phrase it wrong : ). Lucky some of you know me and can fill in the gaps when I quickly write something. But I do know there are not many I talk too would take a polygraph. There is sure a flurry of activity going on around here over the Arkansas thing. The 13 year old spent summers up here with his grandparents. My colleague who appeared on tv has been swamped with calls wanting an interview. He had CBS sitting in his driveway, CNN called, NBC, Fox--really something wild. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 06:53:52 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Thanks for ferreting out pertinent info. for all of us. I am not sure I read this right--my eyes might be biased VBG, but it seems the Supreme court is not willing to accept the idea that the polygraph is admissible. Am I correct in this?? jackief Hi Jackie, Yes, you are correct. Although the court did not rule out acceptance of lie detector tests in future cases that may be supported by more compelling evidence, they ruled that the evidence presented in this case was not sufficient to warrant approval. In other words, they did not buy the amicus brief citing the 90% accuracy data. Some comments in the ruling: "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable." "To this day, the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques. There is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is accurate." Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Terry, As usual you are mis-stating the facts and trying to offer a flawed argument to support YOUR bias against Clinton. Every lawyer that I've seen quoted about this story agrees that Judge Wright followed the law in rendering this decision. Since these lawyers as well as judge Wright know more about the law than you or I can ever hope to know, it's probably best to acknowledge that Jones had no case against Clinton. You seem to use court rulings as support for your points when they agree with them. Are all the court rulings that do not support your opinion incorrect? Bill On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 05:54:37 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it does not constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort. That is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. Do you agree? Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron If, as the commentators say, she did make the right decision based on Arkansas law, then why should she recuse herself? She based her decision on the evidence so there was no bias. I bet those who didn't like the decision would not have felt she should recurse herself if she had let the trial go forward, despite it being a wrong *legal* decision. Unpopular *legal* decisions, if based on the law, are not biased, only those that cater to the politics of the time. jackief Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether this is the correct decision or not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions list.Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Annual Internet cleaning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Jackie, The place where I used to work had a PA system. A co-worker pulled a prank that he thought would simply be greeted with chuckles. (This was not on April 1, however) He dialed the PA system and announced: "Attention all employees. GTE has just informed us that they will be cleaning out the phone lines at 9am this morning. A short burst of compressed air will be sent through the lines to blow out all the accumulated dust. To avoid getting dust on yourself or your desk please remove the hand set from your phone and place it inside an inter office envelope. Do this at 8:58am. You will be notified when it is safe to replace your hand set." He made the announcement about 8:30am and then forgot about it. Around 9:10am he walked through the word processing department and EVERY one of the phones had the handset sitting there inside the envelope. LOL...a quick survey that day showed that many others had fallen for the prank also. I was feeling lucky that I was sitting in his office when he made the announcement. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:37:00 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy I got that message about 2 months ago, so I recognized it and started laughing as soon as I saw it. jackief _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Len, Good point. Perhaps Bennett should put a lien on Jones' legal defense fund before she tries to drown her sorrows in a face lift. G I was reading an opinion this morning that this seriously undermines Starr's efforts and that he'd be wise to finish things up very quickly and send his report to Congress. This ruling also shuts down what little talk there had been concerning impeachment hearings. As for the right wing wacko's. Perhaps they should take their own advice and ask God what to do. :) Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:05:56 -0800 Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len At 04:58 PM 4/1/1998 EST, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now.=20 The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:23 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 =97 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones=92 sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock,=20 Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out.=20 Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages.=20 She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27.=20 Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling.=20 Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings.=20 U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by=20 a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from=20 prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starr=92s office says the deal was never finalized.=20 For the past 10 weeks, Starr=92s grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about=20 it.=20 Lewinsky Evidence Sought=20 Finally, Jones=92 lawyers have filed an appeal with the=20 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a=20 January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case.=20 In an attempt to have the decision thrown out,=20 they insisted, =93the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience.=94=20 To alleviate concerns that allowing=20 Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starr=92s criminal investigation, Jones=92 attorneys have offered=20 to postpone the trial.=20 --=20 Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Clinton to Mac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 06:14:48 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Make sure the Judge is a former student of yours ;-). Prior to committing acts appoint judges husband to semi-important post ;-). ROTFLMAO!!! Weak, Ron...very weak! I wonder why none of these things mattered when she ruled that Susan McDougal should be held in comtempt of court for not answering Starr's questions at the Grand Jury? Could it be that this judge simply follows the law, regardless of the politics. My, we have problems handling such a refreshing situation, don't we. Geez, this is hilarious. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 06:33:10 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len No but I bet the "left wing wackos" can still contribute to the Clinton Defense Fund. Put your money where your mouth is. Ron LOL..at least THOSE contributors can count on the fact that Clinton won't use the money to buy clothes or get his hair fixed at the mall. BG And it's much more satisfying for people to contribute to a defense fund of someone who has been wrongfully accused. As Judge Wright confirmed yesterday. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Not Outrageous Enough Behavior
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Ron, What's that "attributed to Mary" crap? If she doesn't have the guts to participate in THIS group, then I don't think we need any of her pithy comments funneled over here by anyone. It's obvious that no one really is making an effort to understand the legal reasons for Judge Wright's decision. LOL.I've decided to take the mature approach to all of this. Neener, neener, neener..BG Bill On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 06:59:47 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well isn't that just wonderful. Let's all now expose ourselves to our employees and ask for oral sex because it's not outrageous conduct. Waitwe'll need to wait until we're on a business trip and have them summoned to our hotel rooms. What? You have no security personnel to fetch your intended victim...well darn, maybe the hotel security guard can fill in. attributed to Mary Keep it in your pants guys. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 08:22:12 -0500 moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it does not constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort. That is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. Do you agree? Mornin' Terry, I think you need to read the decision. ...Mac Hi Mac, Here I will read it to you. This is extracted from the decision: "In addressing the issues in this case, the Court has viewed the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and given her the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences, which is required at this stage of the proceedings." Best, Terry Mornin', That does nothing to support your claim. There is nothing in her decision that warrants a charge of prejudice. ...Mac HI Mac, Wow, that was sure a short decision that Terry posted. Surely Judge Wright said more than that. :) Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 09:21:28 -0500 moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mac, That says the judge had to base her decision on whatever was presented by Paula Jones as factual. She determined that the actions of Clinton described by Jones were not outrageous conduct. Call it as you will. I call Wright's decision deeply prejudiced. I believe she states that if you look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff,which she is required to do, any action by Clinton didn't meet the standard. Should she have lowered the bar? Your claim of prejudice still is unwarranted and not supported by the facts. It was more than "boorish and offensive" conduct when done by an employer against an employee. If it was done at all to Judge Wright to determine whether such conduct constituted an actionable tort. It was not up to her to determine the truth of the charges. She decided a jury had no right to determine that because the conduct was not sufficiently gross to be actionable if it was precisely as described. Before it can get to a jury certain criteria has to be met and in this case it wasn't.Which according to the law and the facts of the case she was absolutely correct in her decision. Remember, Mac, you charged me with not reading the decision. Maybe you should look it over. I have Terry and your interpertation of it is, IMO, wrong and highly prejudiced on your part. ...Mac HI Mac, LOL...I just downloaded my juno account and found 8 notes. 7 were from Terry and Ron, 1 from you. I think they are getting a bit frantic over this turn of events that flies in the face of their opinions. The stretch is on to find some bias on Judge Wright's part or some reason that her ruling was in error. Their problem is that it's such a biiig stretch. LMAO Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 16:59:59 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, You are wrong. As Justice Stevens noted in his lone dissent the courts are very selective in their willingness to use polygraph results. Justice Thomas wrote the decision. He was smart enough to avoid the lie detector. Anita Hill passed hers. Hi Terry How can I be wrong--Thomas wrote the decision in which the majority agreed that not introducing the polygraph did not deny Schffler of his constitutional rights because it is of such a controversial nature. The lie detector is a polygraph, it is the Keller polygraph--so why does Thomas writing polygraph instead of lie detector mean anything at all?? And just because Hill took a polygraph and passed has absolutely no bearing on this case or on Thomas writing the majority position. Seems like you are saying that because he wrote the majority opinion, it must be biased and the dissenting *minority* opinion of one is more valid. And if you consider that your dissenting judge says the courts are very selective in their willingness to use the polygraph, IMO, that means that most courts do not feel it is reliable enough to be admissible--that is what I have been saying from the beginning. If polygraphs were so all fired reliable outside the laboratory protocols that ensure validity and reliability, the majority of courts would not be so selective in their willingness to use it. They would find it a godsend as it would help clear up the current backlog of cases. And a lot more states would be using it, not just the one state you continually mention, New Mexico. As far as military courts using it, this was a military court that did not allow it and the Supreme Court sided with the military court. jackief Hi Jackie, You are 100% correct. Even Judge Stevens in his dissenting opinion did not offer any statements about the validity of the lie detector results. His concern was in denying a defendant the right to present all evidence that a jury may deem to be exculpatory. NONE of the justices bought the rigged results of the study cited in the amicus brief that suggested a lie detector test produced results that were correct in excess of 90% of the time. In fact, not many people discussing this issue bought this information. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Text of Jones Decision/Sue
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue - thank you for posting this executive summary. Do you happen to
know if the full text is available online? 39 pages would be very long,
but I would like to read it anyway. Perhaps it was posted here and I
missed it. Thanks again, :) LDMF.
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
April 1 This is the full text of the executive
summary of U.S. District Judge Susan Webber
Wright's 39-page memorandum opinion and order
to dismiss Paula Jones sexual harassment suit
against President Clinton and Danny Ferguson.
There are six pages in the summary below;
footnotes are indicated by number in the text and
are reproduced at the end of the document.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Paula
Corbin Jones, seeks civil damages from
William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States, and Danny Ferguson, a
former Arkansas State Police Officer, for
alleged actions beginning with an
incident in a hotel suite in Little Rock,
Arkansas. This case was previously before
the Supreme Court of the United States to
resolve the issue of Presidential
immunity but was remanded to this Court
following the Supreme Court30146;s
determination that there is no
constitutional impediment to allowing
plaintiffs case to proceed while the
president is in office. See Clinton v.
Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997). Following
remand, the President filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissal
of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Ferguson joined in the president's
motion. By Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated August 22, 1997, this Court granted
in part and denied in part the
President's motion. See Jones v.
Clinton, 974 F. Supp. 712 (E.D. Ark.
1997). The Court dismissed plaintiff's
defamation claim against the President,
dismissed her due process claim for
deprivation of a property interest in her
State employment, and dismissed her due
process claims for deprivation of a
liberty interest based on false
imprisonment and injury to reputation,
but concluded that the remaining claims
in plaintiff's complaint stated viable
causes of action. See id. Plaintiff
subsequently obtained new counsel and
filed a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint, which the court
granted, albeit with several
qualifications. See Order of November
24, 1997. 1 The matter is now before the
Court on motion of both the President and
Ferguson for summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff has responded in
opposition to these motions, and the
President and Ferguson have each filed a
reply to plaintiff's response to their
motions. For the reasons that follow, the
Court finds that the President's and
Ferguson's motions for summary judgment
should both be and hereby are granted. 2
I.
This lawsuit is based on an incident
that is said to have taken place on the
afternoon of May 8, 1991, in a suite at
the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock,
Arkansas. President Clinton was Governor
of the State of Arkansas at the time, and
plaintiff was a State employee with the
Arkansas Industrial Development
Commission ("AIDC"), having begun her
State employment on March 11, 1991.
Ferguson was an Arkansas State Police
Officer assigned to the Governor's
security detail.
According to the record,
then-Governor Clinton was at the
Excelsior Hotel on the day in question
delivering a speech at an official
conference being sponsored by the AIDC.
Am. Compl. 7 3 Plaintiff states that she
and another AIDC employee,
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, She said the actions by Clinton were "boorish and offensive" but not "outrageous." I beg to differ. If you believe an employer does precisely what Clinton was accused of is not outrageous why not just say so, Mac. If they were true I would agree. As of right now there is no evidence that they are. The bar is in hers and your minds. Wrong again Terry. If you understand anything about law you know yourself that this statement of yours is asinine. There is a standard set and the evidence clearly shows that the claims made did not meet that standard. Your argument is shallow and not based infact nor logic. I thought that maybe by some of your previous post's that you had some understanding of law but I'm in serious doubt of that. If it was done at all Judge Wright made the decision based on the actions having taken place. It was up to a jury to find the truth of the situation in a case of outrageous conduct. That was not the sole reason of her decision. If you take her decision as a whole she wasright on the money. The question was whether it was an actionable tort. That is the criteria she says was not met. Do you agree or not, Mac? I agree it was not met. I also believe it didn't happen the way Jones said it did. Which law and facts? The question is a matter of judgment as to whether an employer can expose himself himself to an employee and tell her to kiss his penis. Judge Wright says in her opinion it is not sufficiently offensive to be brought before a jury by a plaintiff asking compensation. Do you agree? The facts that were submitted to her and the state law of Arkansas. I do agree with the judge. Certainly that's your privilege. But you haven't described what it is you disagree with me about except that you know I am prejudiced. Best, Terry I disagree with your whole analogy of this decision. I think your position on this isnot based on fact, law, nor logic. Therefore it must me based on your opinion only and that's fine. ...Mac " Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Text of Jones/Clinton Decision [was Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton]
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mac, Bill, Terry - I have been looking for the full text of the Decision. It seems others have read it, I must have missed it. Can you give me a pointer? I especially want to read about the tort of outrage. I am very uncomfortable when matters of comparative social judgment are not allowed to go to the jury. But until I read the decision, I can't discuss it, so I'd appreciate a lead. Best wishes, :) LDMF. -moonshine wrote:- moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' Terry, I think you need to read the decision. ...Mac Hi Mac, Please don't confuse him with the facts. Bill Afternoon Bill, I don't have to...he's done it to himself. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HI Mac, LOL...I just downloaded my juno account and found 8 notes. 7 were from Terry and Ron, 1 from you. I think they are getting a bit frantic over this turn of events that flies in the face of their opinions. The stretch is on to find some bias on Judge Wright's part or some reason that her ruling was in error. Their problem is that it's such a biiig stretch. LMAO Bill Afternoon Bill, Do you think that maybe they have cloned Susan Carpenter McMillian? ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Annual Internet cleaning
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thats brilliant, in a place I used to work in I sent a lad out to town and asked him to buy me a Look Straightlol, he phoned up and the boss answered and all you could hear was his roaring laughter from the office :-), I got an extra biscuit with my morning coffee for that one. Not quite as good as sending someone to stores for a long stand though Best Steve -Original Message- From: William J. Foristal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 5:18 PM Subject: Re: LI Annual Internet cleaning [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Jackie, The place where I used to work had a PA system. A co-worker pulled a prank that he thought would simply be greeted with chuckles. (This was not on April 1, however) He dialed the PA system and announced: "Attention all employees. GTE has just informed us that they will be cleaning out the phone lines at 9am this morning. A short burst of compressed air will be sent through the lines to blow out all the accumulated dust. To avoid getting dust on yourself or your desk please remove the hand set from your phone and place it inside an inter office envelope. Do this at 8:58am. You will be notified when it is safe to replace your hand set." He made the announcement about 8:30am and then forgot about it. Around 9:10am he walked through the word processing department and EVERY one of the phones had the handset sitting there inside the envelope. LOL...a quick survey that day showed that many others had fallen for the prank also. I was feeling lucky that I was sitting in his office when he made the announcement. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:37:00 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy I got that message about 2 months ago, so I recognized it and started laughing as soon as I saw it. jackief _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Annual Internet cleaning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Steve, I used to work in a laboratory and we'd all send the new kid out to a store for some fire polish so we could repair the jagged edges of broken glass containers. Of course, there was no such thing. Fire polishing refers to a method of smoothing out jagged edges by heating them in a bunsen burner until the glass melts a bit and becomes rounded instead of jagged. Bill On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 18:28:15 +0100 "Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thats brilliant, in a place I used to work in I sent a lad out to town and asked him to buy me a Look Straightlol, he phoned up and the boss answered and all you could hear was his roaring laughter from the office :-), I got an extra biscuit with my morning coffee for that one. Not quite as good as sending someone to stores for a long stand though Best Steve _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 13:25:38 -0500 moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: HI Mac, Wow, that was sure a short decision that Terry posted. Surely Judge Wright said more than that. :) Bill Afternoon Bill, If he wants to go through it line by line he should start at the top and work his way down. Obviously if he did that his argument would fall completley apart and he would be exposed for what he is. ...Mac Hi Mac, Anyone who takes the time to read the ruling should realize the even if the behavior WERE considered outrageous, there still needs to be a showing of quid pro quo or a showing of damage. Judge Wright, in her judicial wisdom, correctly ruled that Jones did not provide even the bare iota of evidence to support the key elements in the suit. The argument about what we might view as outrageous is the typical strategy used by the straw man argument where you ignore the relevant issue and go off on a tangent. If that doesn't work then there is always some curiously clever anecdote about an old friend or a long lost cousin. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it does not constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort. That is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. Do you agree? Best, Terry Hi Terry ROTF--agree to a silly statement like that. You must be kidding, right!! She read all the material and Paula's lawyers did not provide enough evidence. Why is it that if a judge doesn't render a decision favorable to what people's biases are, then he/she didn't do the job right. If it had gone the other way, these same people would be saying "what a great judge." But of course, I am still trying to figure out how he blocked the door with his arm across it and still manged to get his hands up her culottes to grab her?? All that acrobatic gyrations ole Bill was going through and she never moved?? But she passed a lie detector--LOL. jackief "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
No Subject
Angela Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: unsubscribe Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, If you agree that Judge Wright's decision was correctly rendered, you have to agree with the premise. You can, of course, agree with the decision and damn the reasoning but that is entirely different. Judge Wright's decision has been praised rather than damned by those who support it. Judge Wright decided that conduct described by Paula Jones was not outrageous. She did not decide whether it was true or not and prevented any such finding. Your arguments about the evidence of Clinton's conduct are beside the point. If Judge Wright's decision stands, no court will ever hear the evidence because it was only naughty but not an actionable tort. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it does not constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort. That is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. Do you agree? Best, Terry Hi Terry ROTF--agree to a silly statement like that. You must be kidding, right!! She read all the material and Paula's lawyers did not provide enough evidence. Why is it that if a judge doesn't render a decision favorable to what people's biases are, then he/she didn't do the job right. If it had gone the other way, these same people would be saying "what a great judge." But of course, I am still trying to figure out how he blocked the door with his arm across it and still manged to get his hands up her culottes to grab her?? All that acrobatic gyrations ole Bill was going through and she never moved?? But she passed a lie detector--LOL. jackief "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: Hi Jackie, You are 100% correct. Even Judge Stevens in his dissenting opinion did not offer any statements about the validity of the lie detector results. His concern was in denying a defendant the right to present all evidence that a jury may deem to be exculpatory. NONE of the justices bought the rigged results of the study cited in the amicus brief that suggested a lie detector test produced results that were correct in excess of 90% of the time. In fact, not many people discussing this issue bought this information. Bill But Bill It is the study by Iacono and Rykken that is fraudulent, because it did not support the Honts' study that found 90%. VBG. It is called "Hello, Wall." jackief _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments about the nature of truth when stating facts. I will admit we cannot fully know the earth is round, that Al Capone was a racketeer and that Clarence Thomas is a perjurer. Sometimes close is good enough. Your modesty is enchanting but your flawless performance on the test has to be acknowledged by your admission you read it. We know this with Cartesian certainty because it is obvious you think despite your efforts to obscure that fact. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry I really don't know where you are coming from--I said I believed--not that he was--but that I believed was a liar. Nowhere did I acknowledge or say he was a perjuror. Yes you are free to say any ole thing you want, but when you are discussing something to provide evidence for your view, you don't state as a fact that the man was a perjuror. In a discussion like this, perjuror has a whole different meaning. LOL--that is why I flunked your test--the decision on whether I passed or not was yours to make--purely a subjective decision, I would say. But I believed I flunked, therefore because I believed that was the truth, I am telling the truth when I say I flunked. Sorry a score of -0. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that we not speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew Cunanan a serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer it is idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never tried and convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath about a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue. How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the answers? I congratulate you on 100%. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh Bill I didn't think of that, silly me. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, He made it up. :) Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:07:28 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a perjuror. I am really curious?? jackief -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Annual Internet cleaning
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeez, Bill The article I read is starting to sound more and more like it is really on the mark. The authors claim we are becoming mindless and simply don't give anything thought to things before we do them. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Jackie, The place where I used to work had a PA system. A co-worker pulled a prank that he thought would simply be greeted with chuckles. (This was not on April 1, however) He dialed the PA system and announced: "Attention all employees. GTE has just informed us that they will be cleaning out the phone lines at 9am this morning. A short burst of compressed air will be sent through the lines to blow out all the accumulated dust. To avoid getting dust on yourself or your desk please remove the hand set from your phone and place it inside an inter office envelope. Do this at 8:58am. You will be notified when it is safe to replace your hand set." He made the announcement about 8:30am and then forgot about it. Around 9:10am he walked through the word processing department and EVERY one of the phones had the handset sitting there inside the envelope. LOL...a quick survey that day showed that many others had fallen for the prank also. I was feeling lucky that I was sitting in his office when he made the announcement. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:37:00 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy I got that message about 2 months ago, so I recognized it and started laughing as soon as I saw it. jackief _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments about the nature of truth when stating facts. Now this sentence is great--truth and facts in the same breath. The fact is: Thomas was not convicted of perjury therefore he can not be called a perjuror except by silly people who think because a word may be similar it is the same thing. Your belief and your right to say that you believe he is a perjuror is fine. I hope you don't call him a perjuror in the wrong place though or you might be facing a little problem. I will admit we cannot fully know the earth is round, that Al Capone was a racketeer and that Clarence Thomas is a perjurer. Sometimes close is good enough. I believe there is empirical evidence that the earth is more round than flat and I believe Capone was convicted of a crime and there are also I believe facts that show him to be a racketeer. Clarence Thomas does not fit into this category--there are no facts to support this, only your belief based on the fact he wouldn't take a lie detector and Anita did. Your modesty is enchanting but your flawless performance on the test has to be acknowledged by your admission you read it LOL--I never said I read it, merely that I flunked it. : ). So again you made a subjective decision. . We know this with Cartesian certainty because it is obvious you think despite your efforts to obscure that fact. ROTF!! That is about as impressive as you know what. jackief Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry I really don't know where you are coming from--I said I believed--not that he was--but that I believed was a liar. Nowhere did I acknowledge or say he was a perjuror. Yes you are free to say any ole thing you want, but when you are discussing something to provide evidence for your view, you don't state as a fact that the man was a perjuror. In a discussion like this, perjuror has a whole different meaning. LOL--that is why I flunked your test--the decision on whether I passed or not was yours to make--purely a subjective decision, I would say. But I believed I flunked, therefore because I believed that was the truth, I am telling the truth when I say I flunked. Sorry a score of -0. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that we not speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew Cunanan a serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer it is idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never tried and convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath about a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue. How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the answers? I congratulate you on 100%. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh Terry' The case of the college student with a tape recorder is not even parallel to the material Judge Wright had to go by. She didn't have a tape recording, so could only go by allegations that were not supported in the documents submitted to the court. The courts are clogged enough without putting cases on the docket that do not measure up to the standards of the court. Oh Jackie, Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She did not decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description of Clinton's conduct. Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as presumed true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not "outrageous" If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had to face removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same supporters Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have planned a bright future. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI COTD: The Zodiac Killer
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On June 6, 1990, identical handwritten letters were mailed in New York City to the New York Post and the production office of the CBS news program "60 Minutes." The letters read: This is the Zodiac the twelve sign will die when the belts in the heaven are seen the first sign is dead on march 8 1990 1:45 AM white man with cane shoot on the back in the street the second sign is dead on march 29 1990 2:57 AM white man with black coat shoot in the side in front of house the third sign is dead on May 31 1990 2:04 AM white old man with can shoot in front of house Faust no more games pigs all shoot in Brooklyn with .380 RNL or 9mm no grooves on bullet In addition to the chilling message, each letter was decorated with three pie-shaped wedges, each marked with the astrological signs for Gemini, Taurus, and Scorpio. The other was a cross and circle, variously interpreted as an ancient Celtic cross or the cross hairs of a telescopic gun sight. Police "studied" the letters for two weeks before going public with the announcement that their correspondent--"Zodiac" or "Faust"--was wanted in connection with three unsolved shootings from the dates in question. There were certain obvious discrepancies, including the fact that one victim had been shot in Queens and all three were still alive, but the description of events was otherwise strikingly accurate. Even the ballistics reference to caliber and "RNL"--for round-nosed lead projectiles--was precise. A similar note, including mention of the "Zodiac" and "belts of heaven," had been found beside the third victim, with a positive handwriting match completing the chain of evidence. Target number one was 49-year-old Mario Orozco, shot in the back near the intersection of Atlantic and Sheridan Avenues. Orozco told police that his assailant, wearing a brown ski mask and gloves, had crossed the street to intercept him, pressed a gun against his back, and fired one shot, then stood above his prostrate body for a moment or two, aiming the pistol at his victim's face before he fled the scene. Number two, 33-year-old Jermaine Montenesdro, was staggering home from a late party in the Bronx when he was gunned down near a subway station, six blocks from the scene of the first attack. Shot in the back and seriously wounded, Montenesdro never got a look at his attacker. The third victim, 78-year-old Joseph Proce, was standing on 87th Road in Woodhaven, Queens, when a bearded black man approached him and asked for a dollar. Proce refused and was moving away when a shot from behind knocked him sprawling. Initially, the gunman's pattern seemed to consist of close-range attacks on "elderly" white males (two walking with canes, while Montenesdro's boozy stagger indicated physical infirmity). The shocker came when a review of background information on the victims showed that each was born within the astrological sign noted by their attacker--Gemini, Taurus, and Scorpio, respectively. None of the wounded men had recognized his assailant, but the gunman obviously knew them well enough to pick his targets by their birth signs. In short, the attacks were not random, but carefully planned in advance. While the gunman signed his letters "Faust"--a character from German literature who sold his soul to Satan--the "Zodiac" reference prompted speculation on a possible link to California's unidentified serial stalker from the 1960s. NYPD's new "Zodiac" task force requisitioned dusty files from San Francisco, poring over 20-year-old leads in hopes of finding something, anything, to help them crack the case. Newsmen were quick to jump on the "Zodiac" bandwagon, noting "similarities" between the New York letters and some of the earlier California correspondence. Aside from the opening lines--"This is the Zodiac"--reporters noted duplication of the original "Zodiac's" cross-hairs symbol, "similar" handwriting patterns, detailed ballistic descriptions, and reference to the police as "pigs. On the down side, the original "Zodiac's" letters had been widely published since 1969, and the California killer was known to be a white man. Barring some unknown personal relationship, New York's case seemed to be the work of a demented copycat. Detectives noted that the gunman's three attacks had taken place at 21- and 63-day intervals, suggesting variations on a compulsive three-week cycle. Man hunters were ready on June 21, first day of the astrological month for Cancer, but the gunman outsmarted them, shifting his target zone miles away to Central Park. This time the victim was a homeless black man sleeping in the park. He would survive his wound, and police were mystified that his birth sign--Cancer--matched the note that his assailant left behind to mark the crime scene. On June 22, angered by public debate over his link to the original "Zodiac"
