Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, No, she would have no grounds for a lawsuit because her contempt of court was well within the law. She was held in contempt for refusing to testify before the Grand Jury after being given use immunity. In those cases the person has no choice. Testify or be held in contempt. Bill On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 11:39:10 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue Hi Sue, The LAST thing her handlers want is for her to be out making statements! That's why they brought in Susan Carpenter McMillan. I'm still betting that they cut their losses and decide not to appeal. Too bad for all those groupies who contributed money to her legal defense fund so she could buy those new clothes and get her hair fixed. The Comedy Central channel had a brief blurb that reported her attorneys were deciding whether to appeal the decision or to simply turn Ms. Jones loose in the wild. BG 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 Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Thanks. :) I knew it was a far out idea, but just was wondering. Also I have been wondering about something else, just as far out. Since the affidavits involved in this whole thing (where Clinton supposidly lied) were part of the Jones case, and that case has been thrown out, are the affidavits still valid. Or were they thrown out along with the case? I hope I am getting my question across. BG Sue Hi Sue, No, she would have no grounds for a lawsuit because her contempt of court was well within the law. She was held in contempt for refusing to testify before the Grand Jury after being given use immunity. In those cases the person has no choice. Testify or be held in contempt. 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 Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Jackie is correct in that Susan McDougal has nothing to do with the Paula Jones case. Starr wanted her to corroborate testimony from her ex-husband that Clinton was aware of the illegal loan and that he was involved in illegal activities. They also wanted her to say she had sex with Clinton. McDougal's claim is that Starr and others wanted her to tell the story as THEY believed the truth of the matter, and if she did so she would get special treatment just like her ex-husband, David Hale and others. She says THAT would be perjury. But she also knew that with the clever and persistent questioning that Starr and his cronies could put together, that if she did not testify to the story they wanted her to tell, they could confuse her and trip her up on details of the truth that would make it appear as if she committed perjury. So it was a Catch 22 for her. She could either lie and tell THEIR story, or tell the truth and have them go after her with the same zeal they have gone after Clinton. I think it's interesting to note that she was asked if she would ever agree to testify before the Grand Jury on this matter. She said yes. She would testify the day after Starr resigns as special prosecutor. That says a lot. Also interesting will the the spin that others will put on this. Some people who talk an awful lot about how the terrible prosecutors in other cases beat up on witnesses and defendants to prevent the truth from coming out will now talk about how all Susan McDougal has to do is tell the truth. People can be so transparent when their glaring prejudices rear their ugly heads. Bill On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 14:49:38 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I don't think she did have anything to do with Paula Jones or any of the other cases, but they seem to be all intertwined in a way, although they are separate. Maybe I just feel that way because the same prosecutor is in charge of them all. I'm glad you saw that interview too, as it isn't on the web any longer. :) Sue Hi Terry Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I don't know where you got your information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was to tell the story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to testify the way he wanted. She said if she did that and testified the way Starr wanted the story that she would be open to perjury, not open to perjury for telling the truth. Hi Sue: I don't think Susan can do anything as she was a witness for Whitewater, I think. Did she have anything to do with the Paula Jones fiasco? 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 _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue Hi Sue, The LAST thing her handlers want is for her to be out making statements! That's why they brought in Susan Carpenter McMillan. I'm still betting that they cut their losses and decide not to appeal. Too bad for all those groupies who contributed money to her legal defense fund so she could buy those new clothes and get her hair fixed. The Comedy Central channel had a brief blurb that reported her attorneys were deciding whether to appeal the decision or to simply turn Ms. Jones loose in the wild. BG 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 Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to testify - and do so. She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury. But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you? Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell me what other possible reason there was for her actions. although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue 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 Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I heard her myself not more than a month or so ago in an interview say that she would not testify because she would not say what Starr wanted her to say. She also said that her husband came to her and told her that if she said that she had sex with Clinton that they would give her a deal. The interview was on Dateline. I will see if they still have it on the web. Now whether this is the truth or not, I don't know, but this is what she said. Sue Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to testify - and do so. She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury. But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you? Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell me what other possible reason there was for her actions. although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue 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 Jones Case Dismissed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I don't know where you got your information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was to tell the story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to testify the way he wanted. She said if she did that and testified the way Starr wanted the story that she would be open to perjury, not open to perjury for telling the truth. Hi Sue: I don't think Susan can do anything as she was a witness for Whitewater, I think. Did she have anything to do with the Paula Jones fiasco? jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to testify - and do so. She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury. But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you? Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell me what other possible reason there was for her actions. although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue 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 Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I don't think she did have anything to do with Paula Jones or any of the other cases, but they seem to be all intertwined in a way, although they are separate. Maybe I just feel that way because the same prosecutor is in charge of them all. I'm glad you saw that interview too, as it isn't on the web any longer. :) Sue Hi Terry Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I don't know where you got your information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was to tell the story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to testify the way he wanted. She said if she did that and testified the way Starr wanted the story that she would be open to perjury, not open to perjury for telling the truth. Hi Sue: I don't think Susan can do anything as she was a witness for Whitewater, I think. Did she have anything to do with the Paula Jones fiasco? 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 Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I have seen two. I have posted a description of the horrendous conditions under which she has been held. I don't know where you got your information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was to tell the story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to testify the way he wanted. This is pure bull. What sort of tyranny do you suppose we live in? In fact Starr could offer inducements to testify as Susan still has a little matter of embezzlement hanging over her plus remaining time from her Whitewater conviction. McDougal was jailed for contempt of court. It was used only as a means of compelling testimony. It could never be used to force perjury. She said if she did that and testified the way Starr wanted the story that she would be open to perjury, not open to perjury for telling the truth. She has said over and over that Starr would charge her with perjury if she told the truth. There is no way anyone can be held in jail for not telling a story a prosecutor wants them to tell. She could, of course, be prosecuted for lying even if she told the truth. But even if that were true and she were convicted the punishment would be less than what she has already suffered for refusing to testify at all. Hi Sue: I don't think Susan can do anything as she was a witness for Whitewater, I think. Did she have anything to do with the Paula Jones fiasco? jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to testify - and do so. She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury. But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you? Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell me what other possible reason there was for her actions. although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but they seem to be all intertwined in a way, although they are separate. Maybe I just feel that way because the same prosecutor is in charge of them all. The commonality that links all of this together is not the Special Prosecutor. All of the strands of this web of deceit are tied together and linked directly to our much respected President, the spinner of the web. What's wrong with extending my probe? The president did the same thing. --Kenneth Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron: Whatever the reason they do seem to be all tied together. Actually many of the same players are involved in each one, or so they seem. Sue The commonality that links all of this together is not the Special Prosecutor. All of the strands of this web of deceit are tied together and linked directly to our much respected President, the spinner of the web. -- 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 Jones Case Dismissed
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len At 04:58 PM 4/1/1998 EST, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now. The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:23 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages. She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27. Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling. Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starrs office says the deal was never finalized. For the past 10 weeks, Starrs grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about it. Lewinsky Evidence Sought Finally, Jones lawyers have filed an appeal with the 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case. In an attempt to have the decision thrown out, they insisted, the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience. To alleviate concerns that allowing Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starrs criminal investigation, Jones attorneys have offered to postpone the trial. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len No but I bet the "left wing wackos" can still contribute to the Clinton Defense Fund. Put your money where your mouth is. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Len, Good point. Perhaps Bennett should put a lien on Jones' legal defense fund before she tries to drown her sorrows in a face lift. G I was reading an opinion this morning that this seriously undermines Starr's efforts and that he'd be wise to finish things up very quickly and send his report to Congress. This ruling also shuts down what little talk there had been concerning impeachment hearings. As for the right wing wacko's. Perhaps they should take their own advice and ask God what to do. :) Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:05:56 -0800 Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len At 04:58 PM 4/1/1998 EST, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now.=20 The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:23 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 =97 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones=92 sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock,=20 Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out.=20 Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages.=20 She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27.=20 Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling.=20 Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings.=20 U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by=20 a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from=20 prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starr=92s office says the deal was never finalized.=20 For the past 10 weeks, Starr=92s grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about=20 it.=20 Lewinsky Evidence Sought=20 Finally, Jones=92 lawyers have filed an appeal with the=20 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a=20 January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case.=20 In an attempt to have the decision thrown out,=20 they insisted, =93the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience.=94=20 To alleviate concerns that allowing=20 Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starr=92s criminal investigation, Jones=92 attorneys have offered=20 to postpone the trial.=20 --=20 Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 06:33:10 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len No but I bet the "left wing wackos" can still contribute to the Clinton Defense Fund. Put your money where your mouth is. Ron LOL..at least THOSE contributors can count on the fact that Clinton won't use the money to buy clothes or get his hair fixed at the mall. BG And it's much more satisfying for people to contribute to a defense fund of someone who has been wrongfully accused. As Judge Wright confirmed yesterday. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages. She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27. Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling. Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starrs office says the deal was never finalized. For the past 10 weeks, Starrs grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about it. Lewinsky Evidence Sought Finally, Jones lawyers have filed an appeal with the 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case. In an attempt to have the decision thrown out, they insisted, the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience. To alleviate concerns that allowing Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starrs criminal investigation, Jones attorneys have offered to postpone the trial. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc Susan wasn't too happy on tv just now in her appearance. I wondered though if the judge would be strong enough not to let it go forward. jackief DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 16:35:31 EST, you write: April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Once in a while, someone does get it right! But what a lot of money has been wasted. 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 Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Susan has been on the LA channels all evening, and she is not a happy camper to say the least. She says she is getting together with Paula's attorneys and they are going to appeal. The media is camped out in front of Paula's condo (she is home) waiting for her to come out and make a comment, but so far she hasn't. Sue Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now. The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill -- 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
