Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Sounds good to me. But we definately need to go after the big bucks, because Ed is going to want a big percentage of this thing, that is for sure. BEG Hi Sue LOL How about a percentage of what I get?? 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue LOL How about a percentage of what I get?? jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Being your expert witness, it is my opinion that Ed would have a lawsuit. You too since you both have suffered irreparable harm and agony. LOL I base this all on my newfound knowledge. :) Now can we talk about my fee? BEG Sue Hi Sue Was this spread (no pun intended) before or after the traumatic event in the hotel room that caused her to suffer sexual aversion?? I am assuming after--she probably wouldn't be noticed by Playbody until she was a celebrity of some sort As long as everyone is jumping on this bandwagon, I wonder if Ed can sue?? After I found out that I was overlooked (remember you are my expert witness Sue) my trauma has been so great that I have developed an aversion to sex and Ed is now suffering from deep emotional trauma from the loss LOL. We could really rake in the dollars, don't you think : ) 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Somehow I don't think the posing for pictures for a boyfriend is what is at issue here. I think the problem is how Penthouse obtained them and I guess felt it was legal to publish them. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? Doc People will be glad to know there are none of me. It is not a matter of morality but of common decency. Wonder no longer, Doc. Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting a boyfriend take nude pictures of her. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry I don't think Anita Hill even thought of taking out a suit. Didn't she offer to provide information in the senate hearings, but didn't want it public? That is a little different than scouring the laws to find an innovative way to start a civil action to get money, no matter how little the sum in the beginning. So the circumstances appear to be somewhat different. Your observations about most women not reporting incidents or rape is changing, although slowly. So that is not as viable an excuse as it once was. She worked for a state agency. Sexual harrassment workshops are held annually in most government agencies, as well as business places. So women and men are much more aware of their rights and are able to complain without publicity in most places. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact that things do seem to get added. First being she took until just a short time before the statue of limitations ran out to file her claim. If she was so humiliated and hurt why did it take so long? Most women never report such an incident or a more serious rape. Jones says she had no intention of reporting anything until the continuing stories of her dalliances with Clinton were put in print. You should understand that suit was filed under a somewhat novel interpretation of one law and that time had expired on normal charges. I think the time women take to level charges is a complete red herring. Most of those who use this argument against Jones have no problem with Anita Hill's much longer silence. Secondly she was id'd as only Paula in the obscure magazine The Spectator, and no one even knew who this person was even if they happened to be the one person who happened to read this publication. She didn't read it. It was pointed out to her by a friend who did read it. Her circle of acquaintances was quite well aware of the whispers and knew damn well who "Paula" was. Now she is saying that her sexual ability has decreased due to this happening. Which IMO is something that will be impossible to prove one way or the other. Sue I think personally that is a silly claim and is only a ploy by her lawyers to shore up the legalities. Seems a blunder to me but what do I know. Fantastic claims are upheld in court. That Jones was upset should be obvious to anyone. Her determination and unwillingness to compromise is incredible. She has taken blasts from the Clinton hatchet men and broadsides from the like of Sam Donaldson that would unnerve a charging rhinoceros. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc It is sociological observation--at least that is what I called it when I went BBG jackief DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:57:11 EST, you write: I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I was. BG Those guys are really gorgeous, aren't they? (Hey, folks, that's art appreciation, not prurient interest. Isn't it?) Doc 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-22 11:18:12 EST, you write: Hi Doc It is sociological observation--at least that is what I called it when I went BBG jackief Hey, that's an even better excuse than art appreciation! Thanks, friend. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry looking at this without taking sides though, wouldn't you agree she has a better chance of suing her ex and penthouse for the unauthorized pictures of her in a public magazine? I can see her winning that law suit easily. I know I would be doing that if it was me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? I would say she has a full plate. Wouldn't you, Jackie? 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 -- 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
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, Side note your the only one I have seen say anyone on this group is shocked by the fact there are photo's. What do you have to back up that statement? I haven't seen one person express shock. Oh, I could go back through the postings but I am not willing to accuse anyone - if that is the word. Some have expressed disapproval of Paula even having such pictures taken. I have characterized that as shock. It seems to me reasonable. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue Hi Sue, That one is easy to figure out. They think the money they will get for their story is well worth the embarrassment they might feel when details of their personal life is revealed. I see where Paula Jones now has some doctor saying that he examined her and she suffers from sexual dysfunction because of her traumatic encounter with Clinton. So now she opens up her entire sexual history from the time she had her "encounter" with Clinton. Perhaps instead of claiming she cannot engage in sexual relations any more she should have claimed she was unable to avoid it. :) 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue And how would you explain pictures taken of you by a boyfriend, Sue? I thought that was her former husband but I suppose it matters little today. I fail to see why you would look down your nose at Paula Jones for that. Geez this woman has had to suffer some terrible insults for nothing. She raised money early on by doing an advertisement for Guess Jeans. That was the outfit that specialized in women involved in scandal like Paula Rice, Gary Hart's playmate. One could make something of that, I suppose, but pictures sold by a boyfriend? 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. But I still wonder how she is going to explain this. And you know she is going to have to. So who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? I do know that Susan Carpenter McMillian was interviewed in the story that went along with the pictures. As to how I would explain the pictures. Well at my murder trial it would be justifiable homicide. Donna Rice is another story altogether. There was a whole slew of women around that time. None of them brought charges against anyone. I'm not condemning nor am I condoning any of them. It was a legitimate question, IMO. Sue And how would you explain pictures taken of you by a boyfriend, Sue? I thought that was her former husband but I suppose it matters little today. I fail to see why you would look down your nose at Paula Jones for that. Geez this woman has had to suffer some terrible insults for nothing. She raised money early on by doing an advertisement for Guess Jeans. That was the outfit that specialized in women involved in scandal like Paula Rice, Gary Hart's playmate. One could make something of that, I suppose, but pictures sold by a boyfriend? Best, Terry -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. A former husband (boyfriend?) sold the pictures. But I still wonder how she is going to explain this. Why should she have to? The pictures weren't made for the delight of the readers of Penthouse. Is this something that would even shock Pat Robertson? The boyfriend should be sitting in court alongside Our Beloved President. And you know she is going to have to. So who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? Former husband (boyfriend?). I will try to find out which if you insist. Paula Jones got nothing. I do know that Susan Carpenter McMillian was interviewed in the story that went along with the pictures. As to how I would explain the pictures. Well at my murder trial it would be justifiable homicide. I understand. :-} Donna Rice is another story altogether. There was a whole slew of women around that time. None of them brought charges against anyone. I'm not condemning nor am I condoning any of them. It was a legitimate question, IMO. Sue I'll be damned if I can see how pictures sold by a former beaux could cause anyone to look down on Paula Jones. But then she is being blamed for complaining about Our Beloved President waving his dick in her face. People have a strange sense of morality these days. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Was this spread (no pun intended) before or after the traumatic event in the hotel room that caused her to suffer sexual aversion?? I am assuming after--she probably wouldn't be noticed by Playbody until she was a celebrity of some sort As long as everyone is jumping on this bandwagon, I wonder if Ed can sue?? After I found out that I was overlooked (remember you are my expert witness Sue) my trauma has been so great that I have developed an aversion to sex and Ed is now suffering from deep emotional trauma from the loss LOL. We could really rake in the dollars, don't you think : ) jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue Hi Sue, That one is easy to figure out. They think the money they will get for their story is well worth the embarrassment they might feel when details of their personal life is revealed. I see where Paula Jones now has some doctor saying that he examined her and she suffers from sexual dysfunction because of her traumatic encounter with Clinton. So now she opens up her entire sexual history from the time she had her "encounter" with Clinton. Perhaps instead of claiming she cannot engage in sexual relations any more she should have claimed she was unable to avoid it. :) 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 -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue And how would you explain pictures taken of you by a boyfriend, Sue? I thought that was her former husband but I suppose it matters little today. I fail to see why you would look down your nose at Paula Jones for that. Geez this woman has had to suffer some terrible insults for nothing. She raised money early on by doing an advertisement for Guess Jeans. That was the outfit that specialized in women involved in scandal like Paula Rice, Gary Hart's playmate. One could make something of that, I suppose, but pictures sold by a boyfriend? Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? jackief 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? I would say she has a full plate. Wouldn't you, Jackie? 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 10:04:28 EST, you write: Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? Doc People will be glad to know there are none of me. It is not a matter of morality but of common decency. Wonder no longer, Doc. Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting a boyfriend take nude pictures of her. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 10:59:06 EST, you write:
Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term
grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting
a boyfriend take nude pictures of her.
No "for women only" about it on this end, Terry. I'd think the same thing if
a guy let his girlfriend take nude pix and then complained about it when those
pix ended up in Playgirl. ("Slut" BTW is your word, not mine.)
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: The one thing about the story that appeared in Penthouse that really bothered me was that Susan Carpenter McMillian took that opportunity to defend her client, friend, or whatever Paula Jones is to her. There just seems to be something wrong with that scenario to me. It seems to me that if Paula was that upset about these pictures appearing then instead of using that forum to defend her "client", McMillian should have been yelling about the pictures being there in the first place. I don't know if I am getting my feelings across here very well. Sue Hi Sue, I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. A former husband (boyfriend?) sold the pictures. But I still wonder how she is going to explain this. Why should she have to? The pictures weren't made for the delight of the readers of Penthouse. Is this something that would even shock Pat Robertson? The boyfriend should be sitting in court alongside Our Beloved President. And you know she is going to have to. So who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? Former husband (boyfriend?). I will try to find out which if you insist. Paula Jones got nothing. I do know that Susan Carpenter McMillian was interviewed in the story that went along with the pictures. As to how I would explain the pictures. Well at my murder trial it would be justifiable homicide. I understand. :-} Donna Rice is another story altogether. There was a whole slew of women around that time. None of them brought charges against anyone. I'm not condemning nor am I condoning any of them. It was a legitimate question, IMO. Sue I'll be damned if I can see how pictures sold by a former beaux could cause anyone to look down on Paula Jones. But then she is being blamed for complaining about Our Beloved President waving his dick in her face. People have a strange sense of morality these days. Best, Terry -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: The only nude photos that I know exist of me are on a bear skin rug. And to be honest I don't care who sees them. :) So no you aren't alone. :) Sue I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? Doc -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term
grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting
a boyfriend take nude pictures of her.
No "for women only" about it on this end, Terry. I'd think the same thing if
a guy let his girlfriend take nude pix and then complained about it when those
pix ended up in Playgirl. ("Slut" BTW is your word, not mine.)
Doc
I don't use slut. I am not a puritan. I have no familiarity with the
language of puritanism. I am not one who thinks the public has a right to
knowledge about the private sexual activities of consenting adults. Just my
own private immorality, I guess.
From my own perspective there does not seem to be a great demand for nude
pictures of many men outside the gay community. The sexual activities of
men do not seem to scandalize the public like those of women.
I don't make the rules, Doc.
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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: The one thing about the story that appeared in Penthouse that really bothered me was that Susan Carpenter McMillian took that opportunity to defend her client, friend, or whatever Paula Jones is to her. There just seems to be something wrong with that scenario to me. It seems to me that if Paula was that upset about these pictures appearing then instead of using that forum to defend her "client", McMillian should have been yelling about the pictures being there in the first place. I don't know if I am getting my feelings across here very well. Sue Seems to me you are, Sue. In order to use "Penthouse" as a forum it might not have been possible to daman the publisher for buying and running the photos. Obviously McMillan, a rightwing flack who is only using Paula Jones for her own agenda IMO, has condemned the publishing of the photos. Are you really denying the pain that Paula Jones made obvious when the pictures were published? 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: LOL Well I never read their magazines anyway. LOL But I would suspect that Penthouse is probably a bit classier, if that is possible, than Hustler. :) It would be extremely difficult not to be. I don't know if Paula is "lying" or just exaggerating. I do believe something happened in that hotel room. But I also think that the story has grown from what exactly happened. But that is just my opinion on that one. And if you remember it hasn't changed since the inception of this whole thing. I may be wrong, but that is just how I feel. Sue Let me just reiterate the evidence about what occurred: Clinton says: a. He never met Jones. b. He can't remember meeting Jones. c. But he can remember it didn't happen. Paula Jones says: a. She met Clinton. b. He made a sexual assault on her. c. She told witnesses. d. She was threatened and humiliated to keep her quiet. Witnesses say: a. It happened. b. She told them Clinton assaulted her, except - Trooper Ferguson says: Jones wanted to be assaulted. - Jones sister says: Jones was happy to be assaulted. - Other witnesses say: Jones was unhappy to be assaulted. c. Jones was intimidated and humiliated on the job. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact that things do seem to get added. First being she took until just a short time before the statue of limitations ran out to file her claim. If she was so humiliated and hurt why did it take so long? Secondly she was id'd as only Paula in the obscure magazine The Spectator, and no one even knew who this person was even if they happened to be the one person who happened to read this publication. Now she is saying that her sexual ability has decreased due to this happening. Which IMO is something that will be impossible to prove one way or the other. Sue Let me just reiterate the evidence about what occurred: Clinton says: a. He never met Jones. b. He can't remember meeting Jones. c. But he can remember it didn't happen. Paula Jones says: a. She met Clinton. b. He made a sexual assault on her. c. She told witnesses. d. She was threatened and humiliated to keep her quiet. Witnesses say: a. It happened. b. She told them Clinton assaulted her, except - Trooper Ferguson says: Jones wanted to be assaulted. - Jones sister says: Jones was happy to be assaulted. - Other witnesses say: Jones was unhappy to be assaulted. c. Jones was intimidated and humiliated on the job. -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact that things do seem to get added. First being she took until just a short time before the statue of limitations ran out to file her claim. If she was so humiliated and hurt why did it take so long? Most women never report such an incident or a more serious rape. Jones says she had no intention of reporting anything until the continuing stories of her dalliances with Clinton were put in print. You should understand that suit was filed under a somewhat novel interpretation of one law and that time had expired on normal charges. I think the time women take to level charges is a complete red herring. Most of those who use this argument against Jones have no problem with Anita Hill's much longer silence. Secondly she was id'd as only Paula in the obscure magazine The Spectator, and no one even knew who this person was even if they happened to be the one person who happened to read this publication. She didn't read it. It was pointed out to her by a friend who did read it. Her circle of acquaintances was quite well aware of the whispers and knew damn well who "Paula" was. Now she is saying that her sexual ability has decreased due to this happening. Which IMO is something that will be impossible to prove one way or the other. Sue I think personally that is a silly claim and is only a ploy by her lawyers to shore up the legalities. Seems a blunder to me but what do I know. Fantastic claims are upheld in court. That Jones was upset should be obvious to anyone. Her determination and unwillingness to compromise is incredible. She has taken blasts from the Clinton hatchet men and broadsides from the like of Sam Donaldson that would unnerve a charging rhinoceros. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 12:43:00 EST, you write: The only nude photos that I know exist of me are on a bear skin rug. And to be honest I don't care who sees them. :) So no you aren't alone. :) Sue LOL Sue! I have the equivalent of those, too -- no bear skin rug, just bare skin taken when I was under a year old. Guess is Penthouse is really desperate they can have those if they want to pay for them. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 13:07:42 EST, you write: From my own perspective there does not seem to be a great demand for nude pictures of many men outside the gay community. The sexual activities of men do not seem to scandalize the public like those of women. Now if I were a real friend I'd subscribe to Playgirl for you. Those centerfolds aren't just there to make the magazine larger, you know. I remember when a new nightclub opened in Peoria offering male strippers instead of the female strippers offered by the other places. A colleague of mine insisted that would be of interest only to gay males. I dared him to visit it one night -- he and his wife took me up on it and discovered an audience of enthusiastic screaming females. Believe it or not, women are as interested in men as men are in women. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: Actually I kinda like my nude pictures, now that I don't have a boyfriend that my brother threatens to show them to. BG I don't think Penthouse has the kind of money that either of us would be asking for these special pictures. :) Sue LOL Sue! I have the equivalent of those, too -- no bear skin rug, just bare skin taken when I was under a year old. Guess is Penthouse is really desperate they can have those if they want to pay for them. Doc -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: Our firemen have just sold out their 1999 calender this year already. :) I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I was. BG Playgirl has quite a subscription list too. :) Sue Now if I were a real friend I'd subscribe to Playgirl for you. Those centerfolds aren't just there to make the magazine larger, you know. I remember when a new nightclub opened in Peoria offering male strippers instead of the female strippers offered by the other places. A colleague of mine insisted that would be of interest only to gay males. I dared him to visit it one night -- he and his wife took me up on it and discovered an audience of enthusiastic screaming females. Believe it or not, women are as interested in men as men are in women. Doc -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:43:12 EST, you write: I don't think Penthouse has the kind of money that either of us would be asking for these special pictures. :) Sue Darn!! Another good idea down the drain. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:57:11 EST, you write: I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I was. BG Those guys are really gorgeous, aren't they? (Hey, folks, that's art appreciation, not prurient interest. Isn't it?) Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, That one is easy to figure out. They think the money they will get for their story is well worth the embarrassment they might feel when details of their personal life is revealed. I see where Paula Jones now has some doctor saying that he examined her and she suffers from sexual dysfunction because of her traumatic encounter with Clinton. So now she opens up her entire sexual history from the time she had her "encounter" with Clinton. Perhaps instead of claiming she cannot engage in sexual relations any more she should have claimed she was unable to avoid it. :) Bill On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:31:01 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I know, I read that. I have to agree her credibility is shot. Even if what she said happened, I doubt that anyone is going to believe her now. Did you hear about the model in New York that came forward saying Clinton went after her? It has come out that she has a rap sheet, a very long rap sheet for bad checks, and other such things. Why do these people come forward when they know that their entire history is going to be splashed all over the papers. I can't figure that one out. Sue HI Sue, Your speculation is as good as anyone else's on this matter. Who knows what really went through her mind. Now I hear that she and her lawyer were talking to the Star about them buying her story back in February. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I agree I don't think that it would ever leave her mind either. But I do think that under the circumstances that it would not be the first and most important thing on her mind either. I also think that if it did happen, over a period of a couple of months or so when her mind was on her husbands death and the financial problems, that the death of a spouse can bring on, possibly she talked to Clinton as well as Hillary and the incident became less important to her. Or at the very least not something that she would dwell on. Maybe he even apologized to her, and they decided to put it away and try to get on with their friendship. This of course is just speculation, but I can honestly see it happening this way. Didn't I see news footage of Hillary and Clinton at her husbands funeral. I think I did. Sue HI Sue, Yes the letters were dated and they were after the alleged incident. Also, she was very active in campaigning for Clinton's re-election in '96. I would think that her tragedy with her husband would have created an even higher level of anger and indignation about the incident if it happened the way she describes it. I can understand why she would not want to report it, however. But I don't think something like that would ever leave her mind. It would have to be a very traumatic thing to go through. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: LOL you are right about that. :) I used to be able to pretty much tell exactly when Simpson was going to show up again, because everytime things got quiet, there he was. Every two weeks for him. :) This isn't going to go away until they finally have some sort of hearings in congress about this. And with the popularity that this man has with the American public, there is no way that they are ever going to impeach him, IMO. Sue HI Sue, He came across much better on LKL, IMO, but Bennett doesn't have a very compelling presentation no matter where he is. The most noticeable difference was that he was prepared for the LKL appearance and I don't think he was prepared for the 60 Minutes appearance. Clinton was responding to reporters after his appearance at the high school. That's all they want to ask him about these days. Have you noticed the trend where as soon as things start to get quiet something radical happens to stir things up again? 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Your speculation is as good as anyone else's on this matter. Who knows what really went through her mind. Now I hear that she and her lawyer were talking to the Star about them buying her story back in February. Bill On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:47:35 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I agree I don't think that it would ever leave her mind either. But I do think that under the circumstances that it would not be the first and most important thing on her mind either. I also think that if it did happen, over a period of a couple of months or so when her mind was on her husbands death and the financial problems, that the death of a spouse can bring on, possibly she talked to Clinton as well as Hillary and the incident became less important to her. Or at the very least not something that she would dwell on. Maybe he even apologized to her, and they decided to put it away and try to get on with their friendship. This of course is just speculation, but I can honestly see it happening this way. Didn't I see news footage of Hillary and Clinton at her husbands funeral. I think I did. Sue HI Sue, Yes the letters were dated and they were after the alleged incident. Also, she was very active in campaigning for Clinton's re-election in '96. I would think that her tragedy with her husband would have created an even higher level of anger and indignation about the incident if it happened the way she describes it. I can understand why she would not want to report it, however. But I don't think something like that would ever leave her mind. It would have to be a very traumatic thing to go through. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I know, I read that. I have to agree her credibility is shot. Even if what she said happened, I doubt that anyone is going to believe her now. Did you hear about the model in New York that came forward saying Clinton went after her? It has come out that she has a rap sheet, a very long rap sheet for bad checks, and other such things. Why do these people come forward when they know that their entire history is going to be splashed all over the papers. I can't figure that one out. Sue HI Sue, Your speculation is as good as anyone else's on this matter. Who knows what really went through her mind. Now I hear that she and her lawyer were talking to the Star about them buying her story back in February. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:34:28 EST DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-17 12:07:41 EST, you write: I wouldn't be suprised to learn that he made some sort of pass at her, In general I find blaming the victim abhorrent, but really -- how many of these women have allowed themselves to be alone with a man they all seem to agree is a womanizer, and how many of them can honestly be surprised if under those circumstances he womanizes? Sure, he shouldn't. We all know that. But can we really react with shock and dismay? If there were coercion, yes. If there were even a threat of retaliation for refusal, yes. But... Doc -- who may just be blase and lack understanding HI Doc, I agree and it's obvious that these alleged incidents are more useful in a political sense as Clinton's enemies attempt to cause him problems than they are indicative of any horrible events or actual crimes. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Obviously he wasn't prepared and could offer no evidence that what he was saying was true. After he had time to collect some evidence to support him he became a lot more confident in his comments. Bill On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:12:27 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: He just looked like he would rather be anywhere than where he was. He kept his head down, and just seemed rather flustered about the whole thing. He did say some things that did make sense. But not many. I wonder when the grand jury will make it's decision. Sue HI Sue, I agree, Bennett was a very poor spokesman on 60 Minutes. As Kathy said he used the same words over and over. I got the impression that his appearance was a last minute decision as he had declined to appear when they first invited him. I guess they figured he better get on there and say something because of the allegations this woman was making. But we all still need to keep in mind that this was a very friendly and supportive interview. I wonder how she would do under cross examination. And we still need to wait until the findings of the Grand Jury are announced to see where this thing will go. Bill 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Did you see him on LKL last night. I didn't get to see it. :( How did he come across on there, if you saw it. I sure wouldn't want to be in any of these guys shoes right now, especially that Press guy who has to go before all the press people all the time. Clinton gave a speech at a grammar school yesterday. He went into detail about how he wasn't guilty of any of these charges, did not lie, etc. I certainly hope he wasn't talking to the students. I can only imagine what they would be thinking. LOL Sue HI Sue, Obviously he wasn't prepared and could offer no evidence that what he was saying was true. After he had time to collect some evidence to support him he became a lot more confident in his comments. Bill -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I haven't seen any of the letters. But I wonder do they have dates on them? Could any of them have been written before the incident? I think most if not all of these incidents have been blown (pardon the pun) out of proportion. I do think that there have been incidents, but I wonder about what really happened. Of course no one will ever know that because there were only two people present when it happened, if they happened. There is one thing though that I have been thinking about. When this incident happened her husband killed himself the same day. Could it be that after she found out about this, the whole thing with Clinton sort of went out of her mind? I think it would have become a very inconsequential thing in mine if I just found out my husband blew his brains out. Then in the ensuing days perhaps she talked to both Clinton and Hillary (they were friends) and with all the preparations for funerals, family things, settling legal matters, it just sort of went away. As time passed it just went further and further into the background. Until it just didn't matter any more. I can see this happening this way myself. She didn't want to come forward. She was forced, according to reports, to make this public. What do you think about my idea. Sue HI Sue, Now that we've heard about the book deal and seen some of her letters to Clinton written after the fact I'm tending to believe that Willey greatly exaggerated her meeting with Clinton that day. I wouldn't be suprised to learn that he made some sort of pass at her, but now doubt that he kissed her on the mouth, touched her breast and put her hand on his penis. Bill -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sooz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is one thing though that I have been thinking about. When this incident happened her husband killed himself the same day. Could it be that after she found out about this, the whole thing with Clinton sort of went out of her mind? I think it would have become a very inconsequential thing in mine if I just found out my husband blew his brains out. Then in the ensuing days perhaps she talked to both Clinton and Hillary (they were friends) and with all the preparations for funerals, family things, settling legal matters, it just sort of went away. As time passed it just went further and further into the background. Until it just didn't matter any more. Hello, I was thinking along those lines myself. I can't imagine that anything would be more important to a person than the death of a spouse or child and under the circumstances one would not be able to think about anything else. Even something like that which, if you believe what she says, is shocking and abhorent. And I believe that it would take months, maybe years, to get back to "normal" and get on with your life. Thankfully I don't have first hand experience but under the same circumstances I imagine that the incident she described would be the last thing I would be thinking about. The word "inconsequential" is a very good description of the place it would take in my mind under the same circumstances. And I don't say that lightly...I think it would be horrible thing to to experience. Sooz Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-17 12:07:41 EST, you write: I wouldn't be suprised to learn that he made some sort of pass at her, In general I find blaming the victim abhorrent, but really -- how many of these women have allowed themselves to be alone with a man they all seem to agree is a womanizer, and how many of them can honestly be surprised if under those circumstances he womanizes? Sure, he shouldn't. We all know that. But can we really react with shock and dismay? If there were coercion, yes. If there were even a threat of retaliation for refusal, yes. But... Doc -- who may just be blase and lack understanding Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: You know that I have been waiting for something to come out that really made sense. Well I think it finally has. I also think that Kathleen Willey was very credible. :( And his lawyer didn't come across too good. It looks to me like Clinton is really in trouble now. :( I saw the lawyer on Sam Donaldson this morning, and it didn't look good then either. After reading the depo's, and listening to her, he had better have some answers for everyone, and pretty darn quick. Sue After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and shocked president in the History or this country! During tonights interview I counted Bewildered and shocked being used at least eight times each concerning the reacton from the president! So now we can say we had Reagan in the 80's running up our debt, and we had Clinton running up our confusion with all his shocked and bewildered statements. Me? I'm personally fed up with the same old statements no matter what the allegation. And I did watch that interview closely, all I can say is Mr. Prez Kathleen Willey was VERY believable and your PR person wasn't, and for the first time I do think Mr. Prez is in trouble if the statements made on 60 minutes are true, especially about perjury and the Prez denying her allegations in his depo. -- Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and shocked president in the History or this country! During tonights interview I counted Bewildered and shocked being used at least eight times each concerning the reacton from the president! So now we can say we had Reagan in the 80's running up our debt, and we had Clinton running up our confusion with all his shocked and bewildered statements. Me? I'm personally fed up with the same old statements no matter what the allegation. And I did watch that interview closely, all I can say is Mr. Prez Kathleen Willey was VERY believable and your PR person wasn't, and for the first time I do think Mr. Prez is in trouble if the statements made on 60 minutes are true, especially about perjury and the Prez denying her allegations in his depo. -- 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
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, Certainly if the statements Willey made on 60 Minutes are true, then the President has committed perjury and should resign immediately. The question is, who is lying? Willey or Willy. G Bill On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 02:11:42 -0500 Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and shocked president in the History or this country! During tonights interview I counted Bewildered and shocked being used at least eight times each concerning the reacton from the president! So now we can say we had Reagan in the 80's running up our debt, and we had Clinton running up our confusion with all his shocked and bewildered statements. Me? I'm personally fed up with the same old statements no matter what the allegation. And I did watch that interview closely, all I can say is Mr. Prez Kathleen Willey was VERY believable and your PR person wasn't, and for the first time I do think Mr. Prez is in trouble if the statements made on 60 minutes are true, especially about perjury and the Prez denying her allegations in his depo. -- 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 _ 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I agree, Bennett was a very poor spokesman on 60 Minutes. As Kathy said he used the same words over and over. I got the impression that his appearance was a last minute decision as he had declined to appear when they first invited him. I guess they figured he better get on there and say something because of the allegations this woman was making. But we all still need to keep in mind that this was a very friendly and supportive interview. I wonder how she would do under cross examination. And we still need to wait until the findings of the Grand Jury are announced to see where this thing will go. Bill On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:24:13 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: You know that I have been waiting for something to come out that really made sense. Well I think it finally has. I also think that Kathleen Willey was very credible. :( And his lawyer didn't come across too good. It looks to me like Clinton is really in trouble now. :( I saw the lawyer on Sam Donaldson this morning, and it didn't look good then either. After reading the depo's, and listening to her, he had better have some answers for everyone, and pretty darn quick. Sue After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and shocked president in the History or this country! During tonights interview I counted Bewildered and shocked being used at least eight times each concerning the reacton from the president! So now we can say we had Reagan in the 80's running up our debt, and we had Clinton running up our confusion with all his shocked and bewildered statements. Me? I'm personally fed up with the same old statements no matter what the allegation. And I did watch that interview closely, all I can say is Mr. Prez Kathleen Willey was VERY believable and your PR person wasn't, and for the first time I do think Mr. Prez is in trouble if the statements made on 60 minutes are true, especially about perjury and the Prez denying her allegations in his depo. -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill - will the Grand Jury findings be made public for sure? Have they been in the past? Thanks for any illumination, and best wishes.:) LDMF William J. Foristal wrote:-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I agree, Bennett was a very poor spokesman on 60 Minutes. As Kathy said he used the same words over and over. I got the impression that his appearance was a last minute decision as he had declined to appear when they first invited him. I guess they figured he better get on there and say something because of the allegations this woman was making. But we all still need to keep in mind that this was a very friendly and supportive interview. I wonder how she would do under cross examination. And we still need to wait until the findings of the Grand Jury are announced to see where this thing will go. Bill On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:24:13 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: You know that I have been waiting for something to come out that really made sense. Well I think it finally has. I also think that Kathleen Willey was very credible. :( And his lawyer didn't come across too good. It looks to me like Clinton is really in trouble now. :( I saw the lawyer on Sam Donaldson this morning, and it didn't look good then either. After reading the depo's, and listening to her, he had better have some answers for everyone, and pretty darn quick. Sue After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and shocked president in the History or this country! During tonights interview I counted Bewildered and shocked being used at least eight times each concerning the reacton from the president! So now we can say we had Reagan in the 80's running up our debt, and we had Clinton running up our confusion with all his shocked and bewildered statements. Me? I'm personally fed up with the same old statements no matter what the allegation. And I did watch that interview closely, all I can say is Mr. Prez Kathleen Willey was VERY believable and your PR person wasn't, and for the first time I do think Mr. Prez is in trouble if the statements made on 60 minutes are true, especially about perjury and the Prez denying her allegations in his depo. -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hello Doctor, That's a good question and I'm not sure of the answer. Certainly there are things that are revealed in a Grand Jury that would be embarrassing for some people if they are made public. And that includes more people than just the target of the inquiry. So perhaps the details would not be made public, even after the findings of the Grand jury are final and decisions are made about indictment or impeachment. The only thing that is supposed to be open to the public is the actual trial, if there is one and the impeachment hearings if there is one. Bill On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:23:35 -0800 "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill - will the Grand Jury findings be made public for sure? Have they been in the past? Thanks for any illumination, and best wishes.:) LDMF William J. Foristal wrote:-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I agree, Bennett was a very poor spokesman on 60 Minutes. As Kathy said he used the same words over and over. I got the impression that his appearance was a last minute decision as he had declined to appear when they first invited him. I guess they figured he better get on there and say something because of the allegations this woman was making. But we all still need to keep in mind that this was a very friendly and supportive interview. I wonder how she would do under cross examination. And we still need to wait until the findings of the Grand Jury are announced to see where this thing will go. Bill On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:24:13 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: You know that I have been waiting for something to come out that really made sense. Well I think it finally has. I also think that Kathleen Willey was very credible. :( And his lawyer didn't come across too good. It looks to me like Clinton is really in trouble now. :( I saw the lawyer on Sam Donaldson this morning, and it didn't look good then either. After reading the depo's, and listening to her, he had better have some answers for everyone, and pretty darn quick. Sue After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and shocked president in the History or this country! During tonights interview I counted Bewildered and shocked being used at least eight times each concerning the reacton from the president! So now we can say we had Reagan in the 80's running up our debt, and we had Clinton running up our confusion with all his shocked and bewildered statements. Me? I'm personally fed up with the same old statements no matter what the allegation. And I did watch that interview closely, all I can say is Mr. Prez Kathleen Willey was VERY believable and your PR person wasn't, and for the first time I do think Mr. Prez is in trouble if the statements made on 60 minutes are true, especially about perjury and the Prez denying her allegations in his depo. -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Someone here is lying big time. And now at least we have some of the transcripts. I thought that Kathleen Willey was very creditable on 60 Minutes. The President must have thought so too, because he is finally talking. Sue Hi Kathy, Certainly if the statements Willey made on 60 Minutes are true, then the President has committed perjury and should resign immediately. The question is, who is lying? Willey or Willy. G Bill Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
