Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:12:24 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. I wonder whyMac Because she couldn't stand having her faith questioned. LOLyou don't know Jackie very well. You questioning her faith would have as much effect as a mosquito biting the butt of an elephant. 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: Hi Jackie, ROTFLMAO!! Obviously Terry is a legend in his own mind. VBG And we'd never get tired or reading your rebuttals. Everyone loves a good slam dunk. But I must say that Mac appears to be a tad ahead of you now. Bill On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 19:37:32 -0500 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gosh, Terry Wrong again!! You are certainly batting zero when it come to knowing anything about this poster. I just figured others on the list were getting tired of me "playing with your mind." You were getting quite funny though with your attempts at "wowing" us with your big words--epistomological, Cartesian. Oh my, I was so impressed, I almost had to stop yawning. It was like reading an essay answer from a student who hadn't read the chapters, but was going to try the standard "bs against the wall" approach. 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 Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mac, You said, like others, you are "reserving judgment" and then you turn around and say "there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations." You have obviously bought the line about the famous vast rightwing conspiracy. Kind of like giving the lying bitches a fair trial before hanging them. Your objectivity is very dubious IMO. No I have come to my own opinion as to who has fueled the allegations. The facts support that opinion. Look into the history of the case and see where and how it began and follow the trail from there. It's a nasty political battle and many are being used aspawns to advance an agenda. You can dance all around it but it doesn't go away. Thank you. You proved my point better than I could. I believed I proved a point but it wasn't yours. I believe it started out as the hem of her skirt then she was wearing coulottes andthe hand went higher. Massage the truth? Is that like embelishing...adding to..etc. Your whole arguement and credibility just went down the toilet. Don't forget to jiggle the handle. and her complaint took on a life of its own. ? Her complaint has remained the same and quite consistent. Wrong again Terry. How about that little addition in the end about her adversion to sex?That didn't come out until very late...two kids late..and from an unqualified doctor. The last is not Jones' story. The story about Clinton's sexual assault has not changed. I don't blame you for trying to drag in specious additions. Even the word sexual assualt is a new addition. It wasn't me who dragged themin. So, again you are wrong. At least your consistent Doesn't work well on greasy surfaces surfaces. Wash your hands first. ...Mac 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: I don't think anyone can speak for the group, nor should anyone presume to speak for the group. But I can speak for myself when I say you have never annoyed me or bored me. I find your comments to be some of the funniest I've ever read on a discussion group and I hope you continue to post as you've done in the past. May the force be with you. Bill On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:16:12 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, If you want to discuss anything I have an interest in I will be glad to. If I am boring or annoying the group I can take a hint. If you just wish to make statements about me feel free. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gosh, Terry Wrong again!! You are certainly batting zero when it come to knowing anything about this poster. I just figured others on the list were getting tired of me "playing with your mind." You were getting quite funny though with your attempts at "wowing" us with your big words--epistomological, Cartesian. Oh my, I was so impressed, I almost had to stop yawning. It was like reading an essay answer from a student who hadn't read the chapters, but was going to try the standard "bs against the wall" approach. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. I wonder whyMac Because she couldn't stand having her faith questioned. 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 _ 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
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I went to the site where each state has their laws on the net, and Arkansas is one of the very few that isn't on there, so I couldn't get the exact law. It would be interesting to see just what it says though. The author of the law kept saying over and over that this harassment law is an employment law and is not a sexual law. I heard something said on another show about "outrageous behavior" but also heard that it did not apply to this law. And the one thing that really won it for Clinton is the fact that Jones sought no professional help whatsoever to back up her claim that she was emotionally devastated by this whole incident. Even her handler admitted that. Which to me is really strange. I would think that her attorney's would have known that. But obviously they didn't. According to every legal person that I have heard since the suit was overthrown, if Jones does decide to appeal they don't think that it will go anywhere. Also if this had not been the President and just some CO from Pepsi or another big company, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. Whatever happens, it can't possibly get to court now until Clinton is out of office, and by that time no one will even give a darn. Sue HI Sue, And that's the point I keep making here. Unless someone understand the specificity of the law in Arkansas that covers these allegations it is impossible to fault the judge for making a biased decision. I read today that it was not what the judge thought was "outrageous" behavior, but what the law said had to be present to comprise outrageous behavior. THAT is what the judge had to base her ruling on. Clearly this judge does not like Clinton nor does she come close to approving his alleged actions. Her duty was to follow the law and that is what she did. Bill -- 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
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ASSAULT? I didn't know you were a witness to any assault! Strong words from a weak mind. Watch it Mac. Where is Ed when we need him :-) Are you going to take that from Mac, Terry? Ron Jury - Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Mac, moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ASSAULT? I didn't know you were a witness to any assault! Strong words from a weak mind. Watch it Mac. Where is Ed when we need him :-) Are you going to take that from Mac, Terry? Ron Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. 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 Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. I wonder whyMac 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 Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:51:18 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ASSAULT? I didn't know you were a witness to any assault! Strong words from a weak mind. Watch it Mac. Where is Ed when we need him :-) Are you going to take that from Mac, Terry? Ron Hi Ron, As Deputy to the sheriff I took immediate action in Ed's absence. Of course, I will file my final report to Ed as always. I challenged Mac about his statement and was about to ax him when, son of a gun, he presented me with irrefutable evidence that his statement was true and defendable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Case dismissed. LOL! 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 Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:24:54 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ASSAULT? I didn't know you were a witness to any assault! Strong words from a weak mind. Watch it Mac. Where is Ed when we need him :-) Are you going to take that from Mac, Terry? Ron Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary ROTF..if you respected that opinion on all the groups you participate then you'd probably sell your computer and buy a Game Boy. LMAO..I've been surfing through some of the news groups on the web. Wow, you ARE a glutton for punishment. 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
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, It seems like there is more than meets the eye and when you look at as a whole there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations. This makes me suspicious of the accuser and of the story they have to sell/tell. Do you see your problem? No, enlighten me if you can. Clinton himself remains remarkably silent while his henchmen make the crudest imaginable attacks on those on the White House enemies list. Most likely on the advice of his lawyers and common sense. Yup. :-} It seems to me that Paula Jones kept silent also and had a plattoon of spokespersons and lawyers doing her attacking. Double standard, Terry! Paula Jones told her story, Mac. We are still waiting for Clinton's lawyers to let him use his - ummm - good sense. Who has a double standard? PJ has told many stories and her complaint took on a life of its own. There is onlyone truth and there is no need to change it. The president denied these allegations and IMO is listening to good advice. His adversaries have done him more good than harm. They have tried to use sex as a weapon and have failed in the eyes of the people. So far the double standard still lies with you. Nixon, after all this time, has been exposed as a crude amateur compared to the current occupant of the White House. I think Nixon was a pro and hardly crude. There were a lot expletives deleted as I recall. What are you referring to?...Mac 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ridiculous! Any CEO who did not have complete control of the company would be destroyed by doing what Clinton did. He would be out on his behind for much less. I didn't know that Clinton was found guilty of doing anything. A local politician was prosecuted for asking for sex with a college girl applying for a job. People are willing to forgive Clinton for far worse than most any businessman or smaller politician could survive. Don't you think maybe people are waiting for the investigation to be over beforethey are willing to forget or agree on prosecuting? Don't bet on it. The opinion that the dismissal was correct is far from unanimous and Clinton has a date with Starr in the near future. Clinton is likely to survive (if the Republicans' good fortune continues) but it is not yet assured. The summary judgment in Jones' case quite likely deprived Clinton of a favorable verdict and may have harmed his prospects. The effects of Clinton's failings will be felt for a very long time. People now actually accept what horrified them only a short time ago. More people accept the abuse of employees by a lecherous boss as just one of the vicissitudes of life. 67% approval rating and the republicans cannot get over it. They have wastedtaxpayers money and time by not dealing with the issues that they were put into office for. If anyone needs to be tossed from office I think the House leadership would be a great place to start. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Arkansas--MN connection was Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I didn't read the story. I have it here but just haven't had the time, but will tonight. I don't think that anything should have been released to the public about these kids. I especially don't think that their pictures should have been put on the front of the magazines. Sure enough some kid is going to see that and think he can become "famous" if he tries something like this. Hope to God I'm wrong about that one. :( Sue Hi Sue I guess the parents and grandparents have decided the best thing to do under the circumstances is be truthful about the incident. Did you read Newsweek--Tom said he was mentioned in there. He was awfully embarrassed after everything mushroomed like it did. Of course, there are two versions to the sexual story. I know the records are supposed to be sealed but I would imagine there are provisions that allow them to be opened. I know if you commit a felony in our state at a very young age, it can be reduced to a misdemeanor and sealed, but if you get in trouble again it is opened and is used as a felony in sentencing you (or something like that). jackief -- 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
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: LOL I had the exact same reaction when I read that about the mother. I just couldn't believe that the most important thing here was the fact that the kid wanted soda instead of Kool-Aid. The kid is lucky to be getting what he is getting, IMO. Besides that I doubt very much that he is getting dehydrated. If he gets thirsty enough he will drink anything they give to him. If he doesn't there are always IV's. And I bet the minute he sees that needle he drinks something. :) I can see why these kids did what they did when the parents are like this. There really doesn't seem to be any responsibility being taken, IMO. A 14 year old kid knows right from wrong. Anyway most of the ones that I have delt with do anyway. These kids are usually freshmen, sophomores in high school. Sure they are still kids, but geeze they aren't toddlers. I also can't see an 11 year old kid talking a 14 year old into doing much of anything, unless they want to. I certainly hope though that other kids seeing these pictures on the front of magazines don't get the idea that if they do something like this they will get famous. IMO that was a very bad idea. Sue HI Sue, That's an interesting point and something to think about. I would hope that the horror and shame attached to their actions would discourage other kids who may be angry and troubled. I think they should give more coverage to the way these kids are reacting to their time in jail. I read that they cry all day and ask for their mommies. I read today that each family is blaming the other kid for planning the shooting. No surprise there. But the thirteeen year old's mother says her son is losing weight and has dry chapped lips. She encourages him to drink fluids but he doesn't like the jail fare of water, milk and sometimes Kool-Aid. Awww, poor baby! Theres a dose of reality for them. Bill -- 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
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, And that's the point I keep making here. Unless someone understand the specificity of the law in Arkansas that covers these allegations it is impossible to fault the judge for making a biased decision. I read today that it was not what the judge thought was "outrageous" behavior, but what the law said had to be present to comprise outrageous behavior. THAT is what the judge had to base her ruling on. Clearly this judge does not like Clinton nor does she come close to approving his alleged actions. Her duty was to follow the law and that is what she did. Bill On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 11:49:45 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: The person who authored the sexual harassment law was on MSNBC last night. It was explained that the law has nothing to do actually with sex, it is about employment. After explaining that even though a person can be a pig in the work place as long as it does not hurt the other persons job in any way it is not against the law. Of course there is the emotional pain that can be caused, but the law itself has to do with employment, not sex. Anyway that was the way it was explained by the author. Sue Hi Jackie, I read an interesting story in this morning's paper that made an excellent poin about this case. Simply put, many people just do not know the law with respect to sexual harassment and what is required to prove it. In spite of the red herrings that disappointed people throw out, it has nothing to do with an action that may or may not be considered an outrage. Clearly, even if Judge Wright thought the actions, if conducted as alleged, were an outrage, the case STILL would not have met the minimum for sexual harassment. People should not be coming down on Judge Wright for following the law. If they are not happy, they should work to get the law changed. Bill -- 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
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: The person who authored the sexual harassment law was on MSNBC last night. It was explained that the law has nothing to do actually with sex, it is about employment. After explaining that even though a person can be a pig in the work place as long as it does not hurt the other persons job in any way it is not against the law. Of course there is the emotional pain that can be caused, but the law itself has to do with employment, not sex. Anyway that was the way it was explained by the author. Sue Hi Jackie, I read an interesting story in this morning's paper that made an excellent poin about this case. Simply put, many people just do not know the law with respect to sexual harassment and what is required to prove it. In spite of the red herrings that disappointed people throw out, it has nothing to do with an action that may or may not be considered an outrage. Clearly, even if Judge Wright thought the actions, if conducted as alleged, were an outrage, the case STILL would not have met the minimum for sexual harassment. People should not be coming down on Judge Wright for following the law. If they are not happy, they should work to get the law changed. Bill -- 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
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Just out of curiosity what do you think of these kids making the covers of TIME, Newsweek, and other magazines. It seems to me that this could be kind of "hero making", in the eyes of other kids. Sue I read about the problems this kid had back in Minnesota and that he was scheduled for a hearing concerning an alleged sex crime. I also heard that his father had some problems with the law, as well as his step father. But I haven't heard anything about the flap over releasing the records. Bill -- 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
Arkansas--MN connection was Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue I guess the parents and grandparents have decided the best thing to do under the circumstances is be truthful about the incident. Did you read Newsweek--Tom said he was mentioned in there. He was awfully embarrassed after everything mushroomed like it did. Of course, there are two versions to the sexual story. I know the records are supposed to be sealed but I would imagine there are provisions that allow them to be opened. I know if you commit a felony in our state at a very young age, it can be reduced to a misdemeanor and sealed, but if you get in trouble again it is opened and is used as a felony in sentencing you (or something like that). jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: They were talking last night about how these kids would only spend x number of years in custody, and then they would be released as well as their records sealed. Their faces have been on Newsweek, Time, etc. There is absolutely no secret of who they are. The prior record of the one boy has been discussed in detail on many of the news shows, and the parents and grandparents are making the rounds of the morning talk shows. I don't know how any of this was made public in the beginning, but everyone from the grandfather on down are now discussing it quite openly with anyone who will listen. Sue Hi Bill What a novel idea, work to get the law changed VBG. I agree with you, but then working to change a law may not be as much fun as sitting and bad mouthing a judge that doesn't do what you consider to be right. Another topic: Had to share this with you. Didn't get a chance to post it early this morning. It appears that we have a local controversy regarding whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this. jackief -- 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 -- 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, Another topic: Had to share this with you. Didn't get a chance to post it early this morning. It appears that we have a local controversy regarding whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this. jackief I read about the problems this kid had back in Minnesota and that he was scheduled for a hearing concerning an alleged sex crime. I also heard that his father had some problems with the law, as well as his step father. But I haven't heard anything about the flap over releasing the records. 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
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: They were talking last night about how these kids would only spend x number of years in custody, and then they would be released as well as their records sealed. Their faces have been on Newsweek, Time, etc. There is absolutely no secret of who they are. The prior record of the one boy has been discussed in detail on many of the news shows, and the parents and grandparents are making the rounds of the morning talk shows. I don't know how any of this was made public in the beginning, but everyone from the grandfather on down are now discussing it quite openly with anyone who will listen. Sue Hi Bill What a novel idea, work to get the law changed VBG. I agree with you, but then working to change a law may not be as much fun as sitting and bad mouthing a judge that doesn't do what you consider to be right. Another topic: Had to share this with you. Didn't get a chance to post it early this morning. It appears that we have a local controversy regarding whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this. jackief -- 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
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 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
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 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 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 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
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
LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
"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
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
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
