Re: LI Colo. Closes Youth Prison
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I didn't even know that they had "private prisons" until that deal came up in Texas where the prisoners were being beaten. I don't think that private prisons are a good idea because there isn't anyone to really watch over how they are run, I don't think. Actually the whole prison system should be revamped. There was a story on Nightline that ran three nights about the prison system. One prison that they went into seemed to be alright. The prisoners said that they were treated as human beings rather than animals, and that made all the difference in the world. Sue Hi Sue This wonderful cost-benefit solution doesn't seem to work so well. This article appears to support the contention of some that there are some areas that for-profit organizations will cause more problems than they solve in the short-term. The issues of possible abuse have been raised since this solution was first proposed, but saving a buck (or so it appeared) became the criteria for deciding the private prision was the way to go. Of course, they are only inmates, so that's ok TIC 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
Parental responsibility was Re: LI DP for 11 year olds
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue :) I more than understand your position, and I think in a utopian world we would all like this, but in the real world things are much different. My main point is quite simply this, there are parent's that have done everything in their power to raise good children, or what society considers good children, but no matter what it's still the child's choice on what they do, if you threaten to put their parent's in jail, they really don't care. And that is my problem with this type of enforcement, you are punishing the wrong person. The child is doing the wrong, the child should go to jail. I realize there are people who are parent's that in reality shouldn't be, but I also realize the majority of people do care about their kids and what happens to them, yet we only seem to hear about the bad kids, mainly due to the fact that's the one every once notices. It's not that simple to have a child declared incorrigible in all states, it's a rather complicated and sometimes lengthy process. I don't see a solution in threatening a parent when it's the child who needs the discipline not the parent. If the parent can't control the child as happens in a lot of cases there could be other means, yes. Not all of them good. But, in the cases your looking at what do you do if a parent has done all they can, and raised three excellent children but one bad one? Do you seriously punish that parent for the bad child and not reward them due to the good children? Maybe instead of looking at the parent as the problem, they should look at the real problem the child who is causing all the disarray and misconduct. To sum it up I see this type of enforcement kind of like someone who kills another and they blame their killing on their parents for supposed abuse or neglect they felt when they were kids. I don't buy that defense at all, many people are abused and don't kill when they get older. Just as many kids have a damn hard life, but they can still make it if they want to. Put the blame where it belongs and quit trying to reflect it off of everyone except for the one who should be blamed. Sue Hartigan wrote: Hi Kathy: I'm certainly glad that you are back. BG I couldn't agree with you more about the laws taking a lot of the authority out of the parents hands. Other than protecting children from abuse, which definitely should be done, I think the authority to punish, reward, etc should be completely in the parents hands. Unfortunately it isn't any more. -- 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 Supreme Court, Angel Francisco Breard
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I dunno. That is a question for Dr. L. or Ed. Where are you guys. :) Sue Hi Sue That that could be used as a precedent, couldn't it for insisting on a unanimous decision? 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 Child death sentence
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to admit that you are probably right about that. However that doesn't explain why every child born in poverty doesn't turn to crime though. There are a lot, probably most, who don't. Sue Hi Sue, Maybe as long as you are wondering who to blame for the problems maybe you and I have some part in this. There is a reason that children make up the major portion of the poor in this country. The last report I saw said that 1 out of 5 children live in poverty. The country has decided that children aren't worth as much as others. The main problem is the long decline in wages in this country. -- 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 Child death sentence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to admit that you are probably right about that. However that doesn't explain why every child born in poverty doesn't turn to crime though. There are a lot, probably most, who don't. Hi Sue, Children with rotten parents often turn out good and monsters can have ideal parents. In the end there is often no one to scapegoat though it is human to want to blame somebody. Blame God. :-} 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 Child death sentence
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: You may have been kidding, but I have been watching 48 Hours tonight and it is about kids who kill, and why. It looks to me that you may just be right. :( Sue Hi Sue, Children with rotten parents often turn out good and monsters can have ideal parents. In the end there is often no one to scapegoat though it is human to want to blame somebody. Blame God. :-} 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
LI Graham: Pretrial Hearings Update
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first day in the latest string of pretrial hearings for David Graham found prosecutors attempting to subpoena between 2,000 and 3,000 pages of letters that Graham wrote to his former fiancee Diane Zamora -- and Zamora's attorneys refusing on the basis of attorney-client privilege. These letters were not offered or admitted as evidence at Zamora's trial. Only excerpts of these letters were read in court. Among other things, in these letters (some of which were written after the couple's arrest), Graham reportedly tells Zamora to trust only him and not tell prosecutors, or her attorneys anything about Adrianne Jones' murder. Prosecutors would like to use these letters as damaging evidence against Graham during his trial in July. However, Zamora's lawyers claimed they would not have the letters at all if Zamora had not turned them over in the context of an attorney-client relationship. Zamora's lawyers also argued the letters contain markings from their defense that may unveil future legal strategy for Zamora. Prosecutors countered these arguments by saying that any attorney-client privilege was waived when the Zamora's defense showed them to a third party, a psychiatrist who testified on Zamora's behalf. In addition, the state said, the letters would be subject to subpoena if they were in Zamora's possession, and that her turning them over to her attorneys does not put them in the sacred world of attorney-client privilege. The main argument focused whether the state can subpoena the documents, not on whether they are admissible at Graham's trial. In addition, this battle was between Zamora's trial team (John Linebarger and Don Gandy, represented by new addition Mark Daniels) and the prosecution, but did not involve Zamora's new appellate attorney, Bob Ford. Ford had no comment on the letters. Neither David Graham nor his attorneys were present at the hearing on the letters. Judge Don Leonard did not make a ruling on the letters but ordered Linebarger to turn the papers over to him by noon on Wednesday so he can examine them. During Tuesday's hearings, prosecutors and Graham's defense team are expected to address the admissibility of Graham's confession at his trial. Graham's defense claims investigators obtained Graham's confession illegally and refused to let him speak to a lawyer. David Graham could take the stand and tell the court how his confession was obtained at this hearing. -- 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 Child death sentence
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry And the sad part of this is that the welfare reform, according to some, are going to hit children the hardest. So it is likely we will see more problem children. It seems like we do mind putting a large number of children at risk to ensure that the smaller percent of welfare recipients are not on the rolls for long periods of time. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Maybe as long as you are wondering who to blame for the problems maybe you and I have some part in this. There is a reason that children make up the major portion of the poor in this country. The last report I saw said that 1 out of 5 children live in poverty. The country has decided that children aren't worth as much as others. The main problem is the long decline in wages in this country. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to agree here. The government in getting into the family too much and then leaving the mess that they make for the parents to clean up. I do agree with that. But it still is your family, and knowing where your kids are, as well as well as making them go to school (which can be next to impossible in some situations) is still up to the parent. No matter what the government says. But it has to start in infancy, you can't start when they reach high school age (or even younger) and expect to have results. What is strange here is that no one wants to blame the kid for what he does. Yet no one wants to blame anyone else either. Sue Sue Even beyond that, Doc, is the increasing willingness of the government to assume a position of authority but leaving all the responsibility with the parents. The government is willing to even kill kids but it is the parents' fault. 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 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 Colo. Closes Youth Prison
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Like everything there are pro and con for making prisons, and other human service organizations a profit making organization. And many are well run, but there is always the risk of some putting profit ahead of the goal just as in any other organization. One thing that often happens is what you found in this incidence. The staff are not always paid well and you sometimes get what you pay for as some would not be hired in state and federal run prisons because they are not well-trained, etc. The other problem that has occurred is that it is not solving our overcrowding problem as the private prisons are accepting prisoners from other countries because the fee paid by the other country is more than the state they are in will pay. I would imagine it is just like nursing homes were before all the regulations were put into place. Once the problems are ironed out, private prisons may evenutally help ease the overcrowding without these types of incidents. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I didn't even know that they had "private prisons" until that deal came up in Texas where the prisoners were being beaten. I don't think that private prisons are a good idea because there isn't anyone to really watch over how they are run, I don't think. Actually the whole prison system should be revamped. There was a story on Nightline that ran three nights about the prison system. One prison that they went into seemed to be alright. The prisoners said that they were treated as human beings rather than animals, and that made all the difference in the world. Sue Hi Sue This wonderful cost-benefit solution doesn't seem to work so well. This article appears to support the contention of some that there are some areas that for-profit organizations will cause more problems than they solve in the short-term. The issues of possible abuse have been raised since this solution was first proposed, but saving a buck (or so it appeared) became the criteria for deciding the private prision was the way to go. Of course, they are only inmates, so that's ok TIC 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
LI For a laugh
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey all this is funny! Read the whole thing you'll get a good laugh from it :) http://members.xoom.com/DiamondB/mybestfriend.html -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Mary Kay (not cosmetics)
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NEW YORK (April 21, 1998 1:37 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -- The jailed Seattle schoolteacher who says she is pregnant with the second child of her 14-year-old former pupil believes she and the boy had at least 10 children together in a past life. "That's one of the ways he proposed to me," Mary Kay Letourneau told Mirabella magazine in the May-June issue. "He said, 'I know we were together before this life and we had about 10 children.' And I felt that too -- we had at least that many." Letourneau, 36, is serving 7 1/2 years in prison for raping the boy, then 13. The two have an 11-month-old daughter, Audrey, who is being raised by the boy's mother in Seattle. Letourneau's original sentence had been suspended, but she was imprisoned in February after she was caught with the boy in a car, a violation of the judge's order. The boy said he and the woman had sex before she went to jail. Both have said they are in love and that he does not consider himself a victim. Letourneau predicted she would be reunited with the four children she had with her husband, who has filed for divorce and moved the family to Alaska. "They will be just fine when they are released back to their mother. I am their sanctuary, their lifeline, their only mother," she told the magazine. She also said that she was aware that the boy is now in therapy and could find a new girlfriend and eventually "move on." 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Colo. Closes Youth Prison
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-22 00:41:20 EDT, you write: I didn't even know that they had "private prisons" until that deal came up in Texas where the prisoners were being beaten. I don't think that private prisons are a good idea because there isn't anyone to really watch over how they are run, I don't think. One could say the same thing about private schools and/or private hospitals. In all cases there are oversight bodies supposedly responsible for seeing that certain minimum standards are met. I'm not all that impressed with public prisons either, so I don't really see the "private" aspect as the total problem. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Another One Bites the Dust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? What "clemency people" are there BTW? "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sure glad that these clemency people are ignoring the Pope, the UN, the Dept. of Justice, Pat Robertson, and carrying out these hard earned executions. Ron HONDURAN CITIZEN EXECUTED IN ARIZONA Arizona executed a Honduran citizen early Wednesday despite pleas from his country that he was denied rights assured him under an international treaty. Jose Roberto Villafuerte, 45, was convicted of killing Amelia Schoville in 1983. She suffocated after he left her bound and gagged in his Phoenix trailer. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected his last appeal Tuesday. The Board of Executive Clemency voted 4-1 against commuting his sentence despite requests from the Vatican and the Honduran president. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, I find it amazing how some people have become so two faced about this. People who have spoken out quite strongly about the rights of defendants and the overbearing power of the authorities now sing a different tune when it comes to McDougal. Again, their blatant prejudices and biases come through and render their arguments meaningless. Instead of wondering if McDougal was taking a fall for Clinton, these bigoted hypocrites should retain some semblance of consistency and question why the system was allowed to abuse McDougal by giving her worse treatment than a non-political defendant would get for the same charge. It seems the Mr. Starr is not above asking people to lie for him or face the consequences of his unfettered powers. Monica Lewinsky is now going through the same hell that McDougal has gone through. Again, it's the case of staring at a tree too long and then leaving a pile of crap next to it expecting others to believe it. But I know that YOU aren't fooled one bit here. :) Bill On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:18:18 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: That is one of the reasons that I believe her. If she got on the stand and said whatever it is that is the truth, and they threw her in jail for perjury it would be easier. But she just went through hell, rather than to get on the stand and (as she puts it) lie. As I said before though, you certainly know a whole lot more about this woman and the situation than I do. But it looks like we both agree that Susan McDougal is someones scape goat. I just wonder who's. Sue Hi Sue, Susan McDougal has gone through grotesquely barbaric conditions and suffering imposed by Kenneth Starr to force her testimony before a grand jury. In prison she wore the uniform of snitches and child killers. She stayed in isolation. She says she cannot testify because if she tells the truth she will then be charged with perjury. This is ludicrous. If she was somehow convicted of perjury for telling the truth, her punishment would be nowhere as great as the punishment she has suffered for contempt of court already. And she is willing to accept more. Obviously there are some considerations that she is not telling us about. Susan is taking the fall for Clinton. What is not fully clear is why. -- 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 SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Only the clever ones. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. VBG Bill On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:12:52 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Think they will ever track down all 100 million of us secret conspirators? Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES IN WHITEWATER BRIBERY SCHEME Claims Husband was Paid to Talk to Jeff Gerth in '92 Monday night (4/20) on the Charles Grodin Show, proponents of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" theory finally overplayed their hand - bigtime. In a taped interview with a Grodin staffer, Whitewater convict Susan McDougal alleged that her husband, Jim McDougal, was paid - and possibly promised a job - for an interview with New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth, who broke the Whitewater story in March 1992 largely based on Mr. McDougal's account. She leveled the bribery charge as her lawyer, Mark Geragos, along with fellow Grodin guests Gene Lyons, John Fund and Gil Davis, explored the allegations that another key Whitewater witness, David Hale, was also paid to tell prosecutors what he knew about Whitewater. Mrs. McDougal and Geragos hope those allegations taint Hale enough to win her a new trial. And the parallel charges implicating Jim McDougal and The New York Times appear to be an attempt to illustrate just how "vast" the conspiracy to destroy Bill Clinton really was. Mrs. McDougal debuted her explosive and bizarre allegations early in the Grodin program, when asked about the origins of the Whitewater scandal. She explained: "I first knew that there was an issue when I was visiting my ex-husband (Jim McDougal) and he told me that he was going to meet with Jeff Gerth of The New York Times. And he was very ebullient that day and excited about it. And he made me understand that there was something in it for him. He was getting something out of this interview; money and the possibility of a job or something. And he said 'I might need you to come in and back me up but I'm going to try to keep you out of it if I can.' Well, from that interview with The New York Times - that Jim was clearly motivated to say certain things - grew Whitewater. And from my perspective Whitewater just never existed. I knew about that business deal; the small land deal in Northern Arkansas. I'd been there. I'd talked to the Clintons about it. I'd talked to Jim about it. And I never knew anything that was remotely illegal about that. So, to tell you the truth - I am as puzzled about how they decided to go after Whitewater as anybody else. Except I know that the very first story, from the very beginning, was not true. And I know that when Jim told that story, he was being paid - or motivated in some way to tell it." Of the allegations that David Hale's Whitewater story was paid for, The New York Times has said the charge is serious enough to merit a thorough official investigation, even though the supporting evidence is "scant". Susan McDougal's allegation that the Times was a party to a scheme to bribe the very man whose tale launched the Whitewater scandal, Jim McDougal, would seem to be far more serious than the allegations against Mr. Hale, especially since it taints the Times' own reportage. And though Susan McDougal may be a proven liar and convicted felon awaiting trial on seperate embezzlement charges, she does seem to have established herself as a credible source in the eyes of the mainstream press, given the fact that they never tire of interviewing her. Will the New York Times call for Janet Reno or Ken Starr to investigate this time? -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I don't know who is using, or why, Susan McDougal is being used, but I believed her in that interview. She has stuck to her story since day one, despite the fact that she could have saved herself from hell, like others have done, by doing whatever it was that Starr wanted her to do. Now that it is over, she has nothing to gain or lose and she is still sticking to her story. And you are right, Monica is being threatened with the same "hell" that Susan McDougal just went through. Although I don't think that she will end up facing the same thing simply because, how would that look to the public. Locking up a young girl simply because she may or may not have had sex with Clinton, and doesn't want to talk about it. I don't think the public would stand for that for one minute. Starr may have nothing to lose, but those Congress people have elections to win, and from what I read and hear on TV, the majority are sick and tired of the whole thing, and just want the government to get back to work. All the opinion polls on the different sites, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc show that. Sue Hi Sue, I find it amazing how some people have become so two faced about this. People who have spoken out quite strongly about the rights of defendants and the overbearing power of the authorities now sing a different tune when it comes to McDougal. Again, their blatant prejudices and biases come through and render their arguments meaningless. Instead of wondering if McDougal was taking a fall for Clinton, these bigoted hypocrites should retain some semblance of consistency and question why the system was allowed to abuse McDougal by giving her worse treatment than a non-political defendant would get for the same charge. It seems the Mr. Starr is not above asking people to lie for him or face the consequences of his unfettered powers. Monica Lewinsky is now going through the same hell that McDougal has gone through. Again, it's the case of staring at a tree too long and then leaving a pile of crap next to it expecting others to believe it. But I know that YOU aren't fooled one bit here. :) 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 Another One Bites the Dust
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Dr. L. brought up something, and Jackie and I wonder too, there was not a 100% vote by the Supremes on this. And from reading their decision it looked to me like one of the reasons was that they didn't really have time to look into the "international" problem before he was executed. They did state that they hoped that the state would hold off. But obviously the state didn't listen. :( So my question is why couldn't they have held off executing him, until all these questions could be answered. And shouldn't there be a 100% decision with the Supremes before they decide that a person should be executed as there is with a jury? Hope you can help us with this? Sue Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? What "clemency people" are there BTW? -- 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 Another One Bites the Dust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, A single Supreme Court Justice can issue a stay awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court but there is no requirement ever for a unanimous Supreme Court in any decision. The vote was 6-3 to let the execution proceed despite the violation of our treaty obligations. Dissenting opinions pointed out the rush to execute without full consideration of the law was - ummm - injudicious. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Dr. L. brought up something, and Jackie and I wonder too, there was not a 100% vote by the Supremes on this. And from reading their decision it looked to me like one of the reasons was that they didn't really have time to look into the "international" problem before he was executed. They did state that they hoped that the state would hold off. But obviously the state didn't listen. :( So my question is why couldn't they have held off executing him, until all these questions could be answered. And shouldn't there be a 100% decision with the Supremes before they decide that a person should be executed as there is with a jury? Hope you can help us with this? Sue Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? What "clemency people" are there BTW? -- 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 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 Mary Kay (not cosmetics)
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron: I certainly hope that the father keeps those kids in Alaska, and away from this woman. She is nuts, IMO, and needs psychiatric help. I hope that she is getting it. Sue Letourneau predicted she would be reunited with the four children she had with her husband, who has filed for divorce and moved the family to Alaska. "They will be just fine when they are released back to their mother. I am their sanctuary, their lifeline, their only mother," she told the magazine. She also said that she was aware that the boy is now in therapy and could find a new girlfriend and eventually "move on." -- 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 Another One Bites the Dust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? Terry: I believe it is a two-way street. If a US citizen commits a capital crime in a foreign country, then he should be subject to that country's punishment. Actually most of us do not have much concern with that. It is of some more concern when an American couple is of a crime of which they are innocent because they are Americans. You may recall the recent case of the couple who were accused of murder in one of the wonderful tropical paradises so that the government might reap financial rewards. Our southern neighbor Mexico is famous for detaining and arresting Americans for the financial rewards. I also don't think that a US citizen, like Pang, whose arson caused fire killed three firemen, should be allowed to escape the death penalty, just because he fled to Argentina which would not extradite him, unless he would not be subject to the death penalty. Canada does the same as do many other countries. Should we invade them? I was somewhat more concerned with this country obeying its own laws. It might help make an argument when other countries imprison Americans and ignore international law. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI NOW Will Not Back Paula Jones
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It was just announced on the noon news, CBS, that NOW is not going to back Paula Jones. Partricia Ireland said that they don't feel that her case should be held up as an example of sexual harassment in the work place. And they didn't like the idea of the R Wing backing that she is receiving. Sue -- 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
LI Susan McDougal To Face Grand Jury
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Susan McDougal To Face Grand Jury LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Federal marshals plucked Susan McDougal from a Los Angeles prison this morning for a trip to Little Rock and an appearance before the same special grand jury she previously thumbed her nose at. Mrs. McDougal, who served 18 months in prison on a contempt citation rather than talk to the Whitewater grand jury in September 1996, is due to meet the panel again Thursday. Her lawyer says he'll fight the appearance and she won't cooperate if forced to appear. The lawyer, Mark Geragos, claims Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr has no right to put Mrs. McDougal, a former business partner of President Clinton, before the panel because of questions about Starr's links to right-wing groups with axes to grind against the president. If the court turns aside Geragos' effort and Mrs. McDougal indeed refuses to testify, she could be prosecuted for criminal contempt. She had already served 1 1/2 years for civil contempt. At her Sept. 4, 1996, appearance before the panel, Mrs. McDougal refused to answer when asked whether Clinton knew about a fraudulent $300,000 loan she had received and whether the president testified truthfully at her trial. The government offered her immunity from prosecution, as long as she told the truth. Later, Starr said that by asking for full immunity -- even from perjury -- Mrs. McDougal wanted a ``license to lie.'' She counters that Starr isn't interested in the truth, only in getting Clinton. The president, Mrs. McDougal and their spouses were partners in the Whitewater land development that Starr initially was assigned to investigate four years ago. Mrs. McDougal was convicted of fraud at a Whitewater trial two years ago. At a morning news conference, Geragos said federal marshals picked up Mrs. McDougal in Los Angeles early this morning and she would arrive in Little Rock at midafternoon. Geragos also said he was stepping up a drive for donations for Mrs. McDougal's legal defense fund -- gearing it toward attacks on Starr's credibility, including an investigation of the special prosecutor. Tuesday, former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker spent an afternoon with the grand jury and said the appearance, his second, would likely be the last. Tucker spent more than three hours under questioning Tuesday about a matters he characterized as ranging widely across ``history and things which may seem important to some people, (but) don't seem important to me.'' The panel is looking into the activities of Hillary Rodham Clinton; former Justice Department figure Webb Hubbell, her former Rose Law Firm partner; and Hubbell's father-in-law, prominent Little Rock businessman Seth Ward. The probe has to do with five adjoining parcels of property in Little Rock controlled by James McDougal, according to recent grand jury witnesses and lawyers familiar with the investigation. McDougal ran the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan that is at the center of the Whitewater investigation. He was convicted in the same trial that ended in convictions for Tucker and Mrs. McDougal, his ex-wife. McDougal died in prison last month, after cooperation with prosecutors win him a reduced term. After completing her 18-month term for contempt, Mrs. McDougal began a two-year prison term for her Whitewater crimes. She is being held in California, where she was awaiting trial on unrelated charges that she embezzled $150,000 while working for conductor Zubin Mehta and his wife. -- 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
LI Bush Backs Clinton on Starr Request
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bush Backs Clinton on Starr Request WASHINGTON (AP) -- Making a foray into the Monica Lewinsky investigation, former President George Bush is lending his support to the Secret Service's efforts to keep its agents from having to testify about what they observed while protecting President Clinton. Bush made his position known in a private letter last week to Secret Service director Lewis C. Merletti. On Tuesday, the Clinton administration made the letter part of its sealed court filing seeking to stop Whitewater prosecutors from questioning Secret Service agents, sources familiar with the filing said. Bush's spokesman said today that the letter simply reflects the former president's high regard for the Secret Service. Bush has had protection since he was a vice presidential candidate in 1980. ``President Bush always stands behind the men and women of the Secret Service,'' spokesman Michael Dannenhauer said. In making the move, Bush is giving a boost to the man who ousted him from the White House in 1992 and putting himself at odds with his former solicitor general, Kenneth Starr, who now is the Whitewater independent counsel. ``That may be the case, but we can't change our position just because our position is the same as the White House's,'' Dannenhauer said Bush's spokesman declined to release the letter, saying the former president considered it a private communication. But excerpts leaked out. ``If a president feels that the Secret Service agents can be called to testify about what they might have seen or heard, then it is likely that the president will be uncomfortable having the agents nearby,'' MSNBC quoted Bush's letter as saying. ``If that confidence evaporates, the agents denied proximity cannot properly protect the president.'' Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford have not expressed an opinion on the Secret Service matter or written to the agency, said spokeswomen for Carter and Ford. President Reagan's spokeswoman could not be reached. In the same filing containing Bush's letter, the Justice Department and Treasury Department lawyers argued that Starr could be barred from questioning Secret Service officers about President Clinton's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky without Clinton himself making a claim of executive privilege. Starr has asserted that Clinton himself must invoke it. The departments' argument came in a sealed court brief opposing Starr's sealed April 3 request that U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson compel members of the White House security detail to answer questions, said a senior government official who requested anonymity. Talks between Justice, Treasury and Starr were continuing, said officials knowledgeable about the case. While no compromise appeared imminent, the court filing was not seen as any reason to break off negotiations, they said. White House press secretary Mike McCurry said no White House officials had participated in developing the policy -- and none had seen the sealed court documents. ``The president believes for his sake, and for the sake of future presidents, that this ought to be dealt with by the Treasury Department, the Secret Service, and argued by the Justice Department,'' McCurry told reporters. ``And we've taken no position whatsoever on the matter.'' Justice officials have said the privilege at least should preclude Secret Service officers and agents from testifying about what they see of the president's movements or what they overhear of his conversations. Treasury officials who supervise the Secret Service and Justice officials have argued that unless agents can be barred from testifying, future presidents will not trust them to keep secrets and will not allow them close enough to provide effective protection. Starr is seeking grand jury testimony from uniformed officers responsible for the security of the White House complex. He apparently believes they have information that might shed light on whatever Clinton-Lewinsky relationship there was, according to a
LI NOW Won't Support Jones Appeal
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOW Won't Support Jones Appeal WASHINGTON (AP) -- Declaring its national board and local chapters overwhelmingly against it, the National Organization for Women said today it will not file legal papers on behalf of Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. NOW President Patricia Ireland told a news conference the women's group believes such a ``highly charged political'' lawsuit should not be used as a test case for stopping sexual harassment in the workplace. Ms. Ireland also said her group ``decided not to work with the disreputable right-wing organizations and individuals advancing her cause, who themselves have a long-standing political interest in undermining our movement to strengthen women's rights and weakening the laws that protect those rights.'' NOW did not poll its membership, Ms. Ireland said, but it was clear from contacts with about 500 chapters around the country that the local groups opposed filing a friend-of-the-court brief, by margins of at least 8-to-1 and possibly 10-to-1. ``Hard cases make bad law,'' Ms. Ireland said. The conservative Rutherford Institute, which is financing legal expenses for Mrs. Jones, and her spokeswoman Susan Carpenter McMillan ``are using this case to advance their own political agendas,'' she said. Decrying the political positions of the institute, Mrs. Carpenter McMillan and other ``women's rights opponents,'' Ms. Ireland said: ``Paula Jones has surrounded herself with a phalanx of politically motivated lawyers.'' -- 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 NOW Will Not Back Paula Jones
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It was just announced on the noon news, CBS, that NOW is not going to back Paula Jones. Partricia Ireland said that they don't feel that her case should be held up as an example of sexual harassment in the work place. And they didn't like the idea of the R Wing backing that she is receiving. Sue That is fine with Paula most likely. It would have been alot like the Democratic National Committee, supporting her. The radical feminist left would hardly want to see Clinton proven wrong. Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Susan McDougal To Face Grand Jury
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The lawyer, Mark Geragos, claims Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr has no right to put Mrs. McDougal, a former business partner of President Clinton, before the panel because of questions about Starr's links to right-wing groups with axes to grind against the president. Gotta give it to Susan, such loyalty, willing to spend time in prison for testifying before another grand jury. They are not asking her to perjure herself, just tell the truth, and if the truth supports Clinton so be it. Makes you wonder whether she is afraid to testify because she would have to perjure herself to "stand by her man". Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Evidence of New Planets Is Cited--Steve
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WASHINGTON (AP) -- The clearest evidence yet of new worlds forming beyond the sun has been found by astronomers using sensitive new heat-seeking instruments focused on a star some 220 light-years from Earth. I watched that report with interest. 220 light years away, someone help me, how many miles does light travel in a year? They would have to have some incredible mode of travel to visit us in California :-) Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Evidence of New Planets Is Cited--Steve
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron One light year equals 5.9 *t*rillion miles. Sue I watched that report with interest. 220 light years away, someone help me, how many miles does light travel in a year? They would have to have some incredible mode of travel to visit us in California :-) Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- 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
LI Lewinsky, Lawyer To Skip White House Dinner
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Neither Monica Lewinsky nor her attorney will attend Saturday's annual White House correspondent's dinner, William Ginsburg says, adding that it would be "tasteless" to do so. Paula Jones will attend the dinner as a guest of the conservative magazine Insight, according to the Rutherford Institute, which has arranged Jones' legal representation in her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton. Ginsburg, appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live," said Tuesday that he was not taking a "pot shot" at Jones and respected her decision to attend the annual event. But he added, "Neither Monica Lewinsky nor I are going to attend that dinner. That's between the White House correspondents and the president of the United States and his staff. And it's tasteless for us to attend." "Paula Jones has made her own decision with her lawyers and I respect her decision, but we will not be there because we don't think its appropriate for us to be there." Ginsburg repeated his criticism of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of allegations that Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky and urged her to lie about it. Both Clinton and Lewinsky have denied the allegations. He said he doubted Lewinsky would be indicted in the case anytime soon, but declined to discuss any details of the case. Lewinsky, he said, would assert her Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating herself if she was called before the grand jury. Ginsburg blasted Starr's office for calling Lewinsky's mother to testify, and attempting to subpoena the records of Washington area bookstores in an attempt to find out which books the former White House intern may have given the president as gifts. Starr's actions amounted to an assault on Americans' right to privacy, and threatened to prevent children from being able to confide in their parents. "The day the children cannot communicate with the parents is the day the fabric of this democracy is so badly torn that we may not be able to repair it," Ginsburg told CNN. He also launched another attack on the integrity of Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp who taped over 20 hours of conversations in which Lewinsky talked of an intimate relationship with Clinton. "For 30 pieces of silver, this woman betrayed her best friend. She had a pending book deal at the time she began pursuing Monica Lewinsky," Ginsburg said, noting that Tripp began tape recording conversations with Lewinsky long before Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. A federal judge has since thrown out Jones' case against Clinton, but Jones has vowed to appeal. "Where was her friendship, her honor, her sense of responsibility and friendship when she pushed that button," he said. "A friend doesn't betray a friend." -- 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
LI Whitewater Witness Goes on Trial in Arkansas
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key Whitewater witness David Hale goes on trial in Arkansas today after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas refused to block the state from pursuing charges of lying to insurance regulators against him. Hale goes on trial in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas on charges of filing a false or misleading statement about an insurance company the state said he owned. Hale argued a plea agreement and immunity granted to him by Whitewater prosecutors in 1994 should protect him in the state case. He also claimed the case was political payback by his opponents for his cooperation with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. Thomas refused Tuesday to intervene to block the state action. A federal appeals court last week also refused to block Hale's trial. Hale provided key testimony that resulted in the conviction of James and Susan McDougal, the partners with President Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater real estate development. Also convicted was then-Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. Starr last week asked Attorney General Janet Reno to work out an arrangement with his office to investigate allegations that Hale while cooperating with the investigation had taken cash and other benefits from conservative groups seeking to discredit Clinton. Starr told Reno he has developed several proposed alternatives so a "complete, thorough and unbiased investigation" can be conducted, but he did not elaborate on the proposals. -- 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
LI Clinton Successor at Arkansas Grand Jury
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Reuters) - Former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker Tuesday made his second appearance before the Whitewater grand jury but declined to discuss the substance of his testimony or to say if it involved either President or Mrs. Clinton. "It was a lot of history. It may seem important to some people but not to me," Tucker said after his appearance. Tucker was an investor in a real estate development for which Mrs. Clinton performed legal work during the 1980s. Federal regulators have attacked the project as a sham. Mrs. Clinton has said she has little memory of the work she did. Another principal in the transactions was the father-in-law of Webster Hubbell, who resigned from the Justice Department in 1994 and later pleaded guilty to stealing from the law firm where he and Mrs. Clinton were once partners. Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr has been trying to determine whether legal fees paid Hubbell following his resignation by political allies of President Clinton were intended to buy Hubbell's silence about the first family's past business affairs. Speaking with reporters following his testimony Tuesday, Tucker paused when asked if the grand jury inquired about Hubbell. "I don't want to get into the details," Tucker said, then added: "Nothing that would stir your interest." Tucker, who succeeded Clinton as governor of Arkansas, resigned in 1996 following his conviction for fraud and conspiracy in the first Whitewater case brought to trial. Convicted in the same case were Clinton's former partners in the Whitewater real estate project in Arkansas, James B. McDougal and his former wife, Susan H. McDougal. Susan McDougal is scheduled to testify before the Arkansas grand jury on Thursday, but her attorney, Mark Geragos of Los Angeles, has asked a judge to block her appearance. Susan McDougal recently ended an 18-month jail sentence for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury and has said she is prepared to return to jail rather than testify, claiming the Whitewater investigation is a "political witchhunt." Earlier this year Tucker reached an agreement with Whitewater prosecutors on a separate indictment involving bankruptcy fraud and pledged to cooperate with the investigation in return for avoiding a prison sentence. -- 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 Evidence of New Planets Is Cited--Steve
Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, but not in a straight line as gravity can twist the fabric of space and light will curve. The fastest time someone could travel from there to here is no time at all. Take a piece of paper and put a point with a marker at one end.Start position Now but a point at the other end of the paperdestination fold the paper over and push it through. Welcome to the world of time and space travel. Steve W -Original Message- From: Ronald Helm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:41 PM Subject: Re: LI Evidence of New Planets Is Cited--Steve "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WASHINGTON (AP) -- The clearest evidence yet of new worlds forming beyond the sun has been found by astronomers using sensitive new heat-seeking instruments focused on a star some 220 light-years from Earth. I watched that report with interest. 220 light years away, someone help me, how many miles does light travel in a year? They would have to have some incredible mode of travel to visit us in California :-) Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Whitewater Witness Goes on Trial in Arkansas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hale argued a plea agreement and immunity granted to him by Whitewater prosecutors in 1994 should protect him in the state case. He also claimed the case was political payback by his opponents for his cooperation with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. Hi Sue, Does the last give you any hint why Susan McDougal might not want to testify before the grand jury besides her fantastic claim she will prosecuted for telling the truth? Susan is awaiting trial on an embezzlement charge. I agree with you she has been caught between big boys playing mean and dirty. It is illegal but common to torture recalcitrant witnesses who may even fear for their lives or that of family if they testify. The law says they must be released when it becomes obvious they will not submit to pressure. Obviously Susan has shown she never will (read can). But it is Clinton who holds the aces rather than Starr. 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 Evidence of New Planets Is Cited--Steve
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fastest time someone could travel from there to here is no time at all. Do you propose to know something about the gravitational fields acting on those light waves 220 light years away? Eventually that light has to travel billions of miles, whether it is bent occasionally or not. Very poor analogy with the piece of paper. Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Evidence of New Planets Is Cited--Steve
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron One light year equals 5.9 *t*rillion miles. Sue 220 X 5.9 = 1298 trillion miles ( not exactly from adjacent points on a piece of paper) 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Digs Fail To Verify Iraq Warheads
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:20:16 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And such selective faith! Clinton denies Paula Jones's allegations and denies that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky and that he asked her to lie for him. I say we should stop sending our money to the Starrs and get out. :) Bill Bill, you are wrong yet again. Starr is attempting to prove a positive, that Clinton and company suborned perjury. The onus is on Clinton to try to prove that he did not suborn perjury, and that negative can never be proven. I have no faith in Saddam, but I have less than no faith in Clinton. Also you are comparing apples to oranges...it is costing millions per day in the Gulf, millions per year for Starr to wade through all the evasiveness and lies to get to the truth.Ron HI Ron, LOL...you made my point for me. The onus should NOT be on Clinton to prove he did not commit these alleged acts because it's impossible to prove a negative. The onus is on Starr to prove he DID do them. And he has failed miserably. (Assuming that if he had the goods on Clinton he would have leaked this information like he leaked the other stuff). As for spending money, if I had to choose I think I'd spend it keeping Saddam neutralized rather than chasing after Clinton. 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 Starr Wars With Secret Service
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, I read that former President George Bush sides with the administration on this one and does not think that the witch hunter should be allowed to question the secret service personnel. I bet the right wingers were ticked off about that one! First he resigns from the NRA and now this! :) Bill On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:58:34 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CBS News has seen sealed court documents in which the Clinton administration claims that Secret Service officers cannot testify before the Ken Starr grand jury even if they want to, CBS News Chief White House correspondent Scott Pelley reports. In letters to Starr's prosecutors, the Justice Department is claiming a sweeping ban on what officers see and hear around the president. Excerpts from the letters are contained in a sealed court filing. The Justice Department claims the White House security detail cannot talk about any "observations of conduct [or] overhearing of statements." Justice says the right to refuse is "owned and controlled by the United States and cannot be waived by individual officers or agents." So far, only one former member of the White House detail has testified. Louis Fox is a retired officer who says he let Monica Lewinsky into the Oval Office. CBS News has learned that Fox told the grand jury that Mr. Clinton indicated that Lewinsky would be in the office for a while. In a sealed motion, prosecutors are asking a federal judge to compel Secret Service personnel to testify, arguing that "obstruction of justice and intimidation of witnesses...are criminal activities that fall well outside the scope of the president's official duties." Starr is investigating whether Mr. Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky and then obstructed justice by attempting to cover up the alleged sexual liaison with the former white House aide. -- 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 Feminism to Support Jones ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:24:07 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are women who are REALLY abused in the work place and the Paula Jones of the world simply make it that much more difficult for the real victims. Bill Bill: This is not about the degree of abuse that Paula Jones allegedly suffered, but about the fact that "Clinton's behavior" would or would not be considered outrageous for any other employer/employee interaction. Ron HI Ron, Apparently with respect to Arkansas law, the alleged behavior, if it indeed happened, would not meet the threshold of being "outrageous". But, as I understand it, even if it DID meet the threshold of being outrageous, there still needs to be evidence of harm, damage or some retribution by the employer towards the employee who rebuffed the advances. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on the similar case that they are currently reviewing. The biggest problem for Paula Jones is her own lack of credibility and the people she has become associated with who are calling all the shots. 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 NOW Will Not Back Paula Jones
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue That is fine with Paula most likely. It would have been alot like the Democratic National Committee, supporting her. The radical feminist left would hardly want to see Clinton proven wrong. Ron Ron Why is NOW membership all radical feminists? That seems to be quite the stereotype. Of course, I really don't know of any right wing feminist groups--now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. I guess women just don't like the right wing agenda--broke, barefoot and living on the edge of town. Now that is a great stereotype of the the right wingers, I think jackief 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Linda McCartney's death
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An investigation has been launched into the death of Linda McCartney, By the Santa Barbara Sheriffs. Sue -- 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
LI Pope, Head Clemency Man
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pope appeals to Texas Gov. Bush to stop execution Pope John Paul has written to Texas Gov. George Bush Jr., asking him to spare the life of condemned murderer Joseph Cannon, Vatican sources said Wednesday. The sources said the pope sent a letter on Cannon's behalf through the Vatican's ambassador to the U.S., asking Bush to commute the death sentence. The 77-year-old Polish pontiff made the appeal to Bush at the request of lawyers and family members of the convicted criminal, due to die by lethal injection later Wednesday, the sources said. The pontiff's appeal did not enter into questions of innocence or guilt but was based on humanitarian grounds, they added. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI NOW Will Not Back Paula Jones
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why is NOW membership all radical feminists? Jackie You answered your own question..."Of course, I really don't know of any right wing feminist groups--now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one." Take a look at who NOW endorsed in the last election ( nary a right wing candidate) BTW, I am not demeaning NOW as I support virtually their entire agenda. 1996 NOW/PAC Endorsed Candidates (Updated 10/30/96) Candidates endorsed by NOW/PAC support reproductive freedom including Medicaid funding for abortions, minors' access to services, and family planning funding; civil rights for all, including lesbian and gay rights, an Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, affirmative action and equal opportunity programs; programs and funding to fight domestic violence; promoting economic equity for women, including legislation to move women out of poverty, preserving the social safety net and protecting children at risk. State Candidate District/ Party Office CA Michela Alioto CA 01 D Katie Hirning CA 04 D Lynn WoolseyCA 06 D Nancy PelosiCA 08 D Ellen Taucher CA 10 D Anna Eshoo CA 14 D Zoe Lofgren CA 16 D Walter CappsCA 11 D Diane Trautman CA 25 D Lucille Roybal-Allard CA 33 D Maxine Waters CA 35 D Rick Zbur CA 38 D Anita Rufus CA 44 D Bob Filner CA 50 D Eq/PAC Geri Schipske St. Ass.D CO Ramona Martinez US Sen D Diana DeGette CO 01 D CT Barbara KennellyCT 01 D Sam Gejdenson CT 02 D Rosa De Lauro CT 03 D Jim Maloney CT 05 D Charlotte Koskoff CT 06 D FL Corrine Brown FL 03 D Henry Green FL 10 D John Bryon FL 15 D Carrie Meek FL 17 D Peter Deutsch FL 20 D Alcee Hastings FL 23 D GA Cynthia McKinneyGA 04 D IL Bobby Rush IL 01 D Luis Gutierrez IL 04 D Rod Blagojevich IL 06 D Stephen de la Rosa IL 06 D Danny Davis IL 07 D Betty Hull IL 08 D Sidney YatesIL 09 D Clem Balanoff IL 11 D Susan Hynes IL 13 D Laurel Prussing IL 15 D Catherine Lee IL 16 D Lane Evans IL 17 D IN Marc Carmicheal IN 02 D Julia CarsonIN 10 D Sue Errington IN Sen D KS Sally Thompson US Sen D Judy HancockKS 03 D KY Steve Beshear US Sen D Mike Ward KY 03 D ME Joseph Brennan US Sen D Tom Allen ME 01 D Eq/PAC Mary Cathcart St. Sen D MD Connie DeJulius MD 02 D MA John Olver MA 01 D James McGovern MA 03 D Barney FrankMA 04 D John TierneyMA 06 D Phillip JohnstonMA 10 D MI Debbie Stabenow MI 08 D Lynn Rivers MI 13 D MN Paul Wellstone US Sen D Martin Sabo MN 05 D MO Joan Kelly Horn MO 02 D Ruth Bamberger MO 07 D Emily Firebaugh MO 08 D NH Jeanne Shaheen Gov D Arnie Arnesen NH 02 D NJ Ruth Katz NJ 02 John Leonardi NJ 03 Larry LernerNJ 07 D Chris Evangel NJ 11 D NM Shirley BacaNM 02 D NY Nora Bredes NY 01 D Carolyn McCarthyNY 04 D Gary Ackerman NY 05 D Jerry NadlerNY 08 D Nydia Velazquez NY 12 D Carolyn Maloney NY 14 D
Re: LI NOW Will Not Back Paula Jones
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why is NOW membership all radical feminists? Jackie You answered your own question..."Of course, I really don't know of any right wing feminist groups--now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one." Take a look at who NOW endorsed in the last election ( nary a right wing candidate) BTW, I am not demeaning NOW as I support virtually their entire agenda. 1996 NOW/PAC Endorsed Candidates (Updated 10/30/96) Candidates endorsed by NOW/PAC support reproductive freedom including Medicaid funding for abortions, minors' access to services, and family planning funding; civil rights for all, including lesbian and gay rights, an Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, affirmative action and equal opportunity programs; programs and funding to fight domestic violence; promoting economic equity for women, including legislation to move women out of poverty, preserving the social safety net and protecting children at risk. Hi Ron: I like their agenda. But I did noticed that everyone but two that they supported were democrats. Sue -- 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 Linda McCartney's death
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An investigation has been launched into the death of Linda McCartney, By the Santa Barbara Sheriffs. Sue Probably another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that caused her metastatic breast cancersheesh!Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Presidential Scandals in U.S. History
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: _ 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 Presidential Scandals in U.S. History
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Sue, They, including Starr, are all on the "payroll" in one way or another IMO. The GOP will do whatever it takes to try to pull down a democratic President. And they never have sense enough to know when to quit when public opinion runs against them (which it usually does). Vi You wrote: . . .what is this Susan Carpenter McMillan getting out of this anyway. You have to know she isn't doing all this out the the kindness of her heart. I know I wouldn't. _ 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: Paula's Legal Fees was LI Presidential Scandals in U.S. History
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Jackie, No new Mercedez for Paula? Tsk, tsk! Even the Republican Party must be on a budget these days! :) Vi _ You wrote: Hi Vi--heard her Mercedes isn't new--of course, Mercedes do not lose their value usually if kept up. But, I guess she needs to drive a Mercedes to the gym--what would people say if she drove a "common" car? (I know, Meow) _ 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 DP for 11 year olds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Kathy, You remove their privileges and wow, do they ever shape up quickly! Think of "grounding" them, no televisiion, no telephone calls to or from their buddies, no desserts with their meals, meals in their room, no new clothes, abed by eight pm, no spending money. And one can think of so many more. If these sound trivial, in actual day-in, day-out practice they are devastating to the recipient and very effective IMO. Vi You wrote: . . .So my question is what do you suggest these parent's do? What if they have done all they could and the child just won't listen? What do you do then? _ 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 Feminism to Support Jones ?
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The biggest problem for Paula Jones is her own lack of credibility and the people she has become associated with who are calling all the shots. Bill Pssst, Bill, just between you and me I think Paula Jones is another Pinocchio and that is why her nose gets bigger every time I see her in profile :-) Ron ( I love arguing with Bill) Helm 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI DP for 11 year olds
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Vi: I agree with everything you said here except sending them to their rooms. With the tv's, vcr's, video games, computers, etc. Most kids love an live in their rooms. :) I heard one woman say that she sends hers to the bathroom. Kinda a good idea IMO. They can't even use the excuse that they have to go to the bathroom then. LOL Sue Hi Kathy, You remove their privileges and wow, do they ever shape up quickly! Think of "grounding" them, no televisiion, no telephone calls to or from their buddies, no desserts with their meals, meals in their room, no new clothes, abed by eight pm, no spending money. And one can think of so many more. If these sound trivial, in actual day-in, day-out practice they are devastating to the recipient and very effective IMO. Vi -- 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 Linda McCartney's death
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-22 19:19:32 EDT, you write: Probably another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that caused her metastatic breast cancersheesh!Ron Something about there not being a death certificate, isn't it? I suppose there's the possibility she was helped along, given that she was apparently active enough to ride her horse 2 days earlier. IMO, so what? But I guess they have to go through the motions. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Pope, Head Clemency Man
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-22 19:24:28 EDT, you write: Hi Ron: I don't think anyone pays that much attention to this. After all it is kind of his job to say something, and he is Catholic after all. BG Sue The pontiff's appeal did not enter into questions of innocence or guilt but was based on hum So am I. So??? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Linda McCartney's death
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: Now Paul MaCartney is saying that she didn't die in Santa Barbara, that they were at a secret place so that the family could come home without being disturbed. When I heard about her dying I told my husband then, that I thought it was a Dr. Kevorkian type of thing. I just can't see a person with end stage ca horseback riding in the morning and suddenly dying that evening. But as you say, it really doesn't matter anyway. Sue Something about there not being a death certificate, isn't it? I suppose there's the possibility she was helped along, given that she was apparently active enough to ride her horse 2 days earlier. IMO, so what? But I guess they have to go through the motions. 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 Pope, Head Clemency Man
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-22 19:24:28 EDT, you write: Hi Ron: I don't think anyone pays that much attention to this. After all it is kind of his job to say something, and he is Catholic after all. BG Sue The pontiff's appeal did not enter into questions of innocence or guilt but was based on hum So am I. So??? Doc Hi Doc: I'm Catholic too. :) What I ment is that being Pope and Catholic it is expected that he would ask that these people be spared death. That's all. And with it being expected, no one would really pay that much attention Sue -- 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 Pope, Head Clemency Man
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-22 21:37:41 EDT, you write: I'm Catholic too. :) What I ment is that being Pope and Catholic it is expected that he would ask that these people be spared death. That's all. And with it being expected, no one would really pay that much attention Sue Not all Catholics are against the death penalty. And few other Catholic leaders give "advice" to other countries about what to do with their own citizens. I am, as you know, against the death penalty -- don't think I'm a good enough Catholic for that to be the reason, though. IMO, John Paul means well but is poking his nose in where it doesn't belong in this instance. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Grossberg: Plea agreement Text
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Delaware v. Amy Grossberg Plea agreement Amy Grossberg, 19, accused of murdering her newborn son and leaving his body in the dumpster of a Delaware motel, plead guilty to manslaughter April 22, 1998. Manslaughter charges can carry up to 10 years in prison, but it is likely that Grossberg will receive a 2-1/2 year sentence when she is sentenced on July 9. Her former boyfriend and co-defendant, Brian Peterson, plead guilty to manslaughter on March 9 and as part of the agreement was set to testify against Grossberg during her criminal trial. The following is Grossberg's agreement. Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County Plea Agreement State of Delaware v. Amy S. Grossberg Case No.(s): 9611007818 Cr.A#s: IN96-12-0127 and IN96-12-0128 This Defendant is not Boot Camp Eligible. This plea is not made pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c). Defendant will plead guilty to: The included offense of Manslaughter which is Cr.A.#IN96-12-0127 found in Count I of Indictment No. 9611007818. Upon the sentencing of the defendant, a nolle prosequi is entered onthe following charge(s) on this indictment: Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree which is Cr.A.#IN96-12-0128 found in Count II of Indictment No. 9611007818. State's Sentencing Recommendation: The State recommends Level V incarceration for a period to be determined by the Court upon completion of a Pre-Sentence Investigation. While the State makes no recommendation regarding the length of the Level V sentence, the State will advocate that incarceration is appropriate. Furthermore, at the time of sentencing the State will advise the Court of those factors it considers relevant in mitigation to sustain the entry of this plea. The State will argue any mitigating or aggravating factors it considers relevant at the time of sentencing. State and Defendant agree to the following: 1) The defendant shall pay as restitution certain costs which are the subject of a Confession of Judgement. This provision shall be deemed severable. In the event this provision is determined to be unenforceable or invalid, it shall nonetheless be enforced to the extent permitted by applicable law, and such determination shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any or all other remaining provisions. 2) The State and defendant shall not object to the submission by the opposing party of any and all materials that party wishes the Court to consider in additon to the Pre-Sentence Investigation. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Grossberg: Plea reached
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Amy Grossberg, one of the two New Jersey teens accused of killing her newborn in a Delaware motel and throwing him in a dumpster, pled guilty to reduced charges of manslaughter today. Grossberg, who was scheduled to go on trial May 5 for second-degree murder in the death of the infant, reportedly agreed to the plea after her attorneys learned in detail what her former high school sweetheart, Brian Peterson, would say against her at her trial next month. Last month Peterson also pleaded guilty to manslaughter and agreed to testify against Grossberg. Grossberg reportedly entered the courtroom sobbing, clutching her parents and her lawyer. In court, she acknowledged tearfully that the she unintentionally caused the death of her baby when she gave birth quietly in a Delaware motel in November 1996. Grossberg described the moments that led to the infant's death as events that "spun out of control." As part of plea agreement, Grossberg will be sentenced to two-and-half years in prison. Grossberg's plea bargain is the final chapter in an emotionally-charged case that saw angry protesters nearly charge Grossberg and Peterson when they were first indicted for their baby's murder in December 1996. The teen-agers first claimed the baby was stillborn, but an autopsy showed that he suffered various fatal head fractures. At first, it seemed like Grossberg and Peterson would remain united in their defense against the murder charges. But then they began to blame each other for the infant's death. Grossberg acknowledged giving birth to the baby, but said that she did not participate in disposing the infant. She said that Peterson acted alone in throwing the child in the dumpster. However, Grossberg denied that she and Peterson had ever planned to kill their baby. During last month's plea agreement, Peterson admitted disposing of the baby. Peterson's lawyers said that he and Grossberg panicked when she gave birth and experienced complications. Peterson claimed that he thought the infant was born dead and insisted that his girlfriend begged him to "Get rid of it!" Peterson's lawyers said that he regretted not seeking medical help for the baby and not getting medical confirmation that he was stillborn. Early in the case, prosecutors considered charging Grossberg and Peterson with first-degree murder and seeking the death penalty. But after Peterson's plea bargain, prosecutors then decided to seek lesser charges of second-degree murder and murder by abuse or neglect against Grossberg. They believed that it would be easier to convict Grossberg on those charges because Peterson's statements did not show that Grossberg planned to kill the baby. In Delaware, the maximum punishment for second-degree murder is 20 years in prison, while the penalty for murder by neglect or abuse ranges from 15 years to life imprisonment. Brian Peterson has yet to be formally sentenced for his manslaughter plea. Amy Grossberg's sentencing will take place in July. Although the maximum sentence for manslaughter in Delaware is 10 years in prison, it seems unlikely that Peterson will receive the maximum punishment. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Peterson: Plea Agreement Text
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Delaware v. Brian Peterson Plea agreement Brian Peterson, 19, captured national headlines after being accused with his girlfriend Amy Grossberg of murdering their newborn son and dumping his body in a Delaware motel dumpster. With the prospect of an impending May 4th trial, Peterson plead guilty to manslaughter on March 9, 1998. As part of the agreement, he now faces a maximum of 10 years in prison instead of life in prison or the death sentence that he would have faced if convicted of murder. His co-defendant, Amy Grossberg, plead guilty to manslaughter a month later on April 22. The following is Peterson's plea agreement. Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County Plea Agreement State of Delaware v. Brian C. Peterson, Jr. Case No.(s): 9611007811 Cr.A#s: IN96-12-0129 and IN96-12-0130 This Defendant is not Boot Camp Eligible. This plea is not made pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(c). Defendant will plead guilty to: The included offense of Manslaughter which is Cr.A.#IN96-12-0129 found in Count I of Indictment No. 9611007811. Upon the sentencing of the defendant, a nolle prosequi is entered on the following charge(s) on this indictment: Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree which is Cr.A.#IN96-12-0130 found in Count II of Indictment No. 9611007811. State's Sentencing Recommendation: The State recommends Level V incarceration for a period to be determined by the Court upon completion of a Pre-Sentence Investigation and after resolution of the co-defendant's charges. While the State makes no recommendation regarding the length of the Level V sentence the State advocate that incarceration is appropriate. Furthermore, at the time of sentencing the State will advise the Court of those factors it considers relevant in mitigation to sustain the entry of this plea. The State will argue any mitigating or aggravating factors it considers relevant at the time of sentencing. State and Defendant agree to the following: 1) The defendant and counsel agree that the defendant will provide a full and truthful statement to State investigators regarding his involvement and that of the co-defendant in the charges pending this Indictment. The defendant shall provide all relevant physical items of evidence or other suitable verification available to or in the possession of the defendant or his counsel; and, 2) The defendant shall testify truthfully in any proceedings relating to the pending charges in this Indictment. The defendant and his counsel agree to make defendant available to testify in any and all proceedings relating to the charges pending in this Indictment upon reasonable notice and with or without process of the Court having been served. -- 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 Texas To Execute Teen Murderer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the Pope and Terry think he should not be executed! TICRon The Pope might tell God what He thinks but the Pope doesn't have a vote. I do. Hehehehe. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI A Web Site :)
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wanna see something trippy? Go to http://lindatripp.com/ You can even donate money to her defense fund if you want. Sue -- 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 Linda McCartney's death
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has anyone mentioned the possibility that this was an assisted suicide, or suicide on Linda's part. I guess either scenario is illegal, except in Oregon presently, so that is why the sheriff is calling for an investigation ? Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI COTD: Boost, Werner
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A child of post-war Germany, Werner Boost began stealing at age six, spending several years in a home for delinquents near Magdeburg. Released for military service near the end of World War II, he had a fleeting taste of action prior to being captured by the British Cease-fire brought no change in Werner's attitude, and during 1951 he was incarcerated for stealing scrap metal from cemetery vaults. Behind the larcenous exterior lurked darker passions. Boost acquired a friend, Franz Lohrbach, who would later tell police that Werner "hypnotized" him and compelled him to participate in heinous crimes against his will. In the beginning, they were merely chums who went out target shooting, graduating to the robbery of couples found in isolated trysting spots. Boost managed to concoct a drug, with which he rendered victims senseless, stealing from the men and raping their companions, "forcing" Lohrbach to participate. One night, in early 1956, Boost and Lohrbach encountered one Dr. Serve, a Dusseldorf businessman, parked on the banks of the Rhine with a young male companion. Werner drew a gun and killed the doctor, ordering his sidekick to eliminate the boy, but Lohrbach panicked, merely knocking out the witness. Police had a description of their suspects by the time Boost struck again, shooting a young man to death and injecting his date with cyanide. Their bodies were discovered in the ashes of a straw pile, torched in an attempt to wipe out evidence . Boost chose another courting couple for his third attack, clubbing both unconscious in their car before he sank it in a nearby pond and watched them drown. On June 6, 1956, a forester near Dusseldorf observed an armed man spying on a couple from the trees. He tackled the voyeur and held him for police, who soon identified the prisoner as Werner Boost. In custody, Boost stubbornly denied the lover's lane attacks and said he merely hoped to frighten off the latest couple, since public displays of affection made him "see red." Self-righteously, the killer rapist told his jailers, "These sex horrors are the curse of Germany." When news of Boost's arrest was published, Lohrbach voluntarily surrendered to authorities and launched into a marathon confession . On the night of Dr. Serve's murder, he explained, Boost was experimenting with a plan to gas his victims, using toy balloons and cyanide. Ballistics tests revealed that Werner's pistol killed Serve, and old investigations were reopened in a series of murders around Helmstedt, in Lower Saxony, during 1945. Boost had been living in the area when several refugees were shot and killed, attempting to cross the border between Russian and British zones of occupation. The case of Werner Boost dragged on for years, producing one of the longest indictments in German history. Upon conviction, Boost was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment, the maximum allowable in postwar German law. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Lunatic Fringe of Psychotherapy according to Lawyer
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A psychotherapist being sued for $10 million for allegedly causing a Katy woman to believe she had helped kill more than 100 babies practiced in the "lunatic fringe of psychotherapy," the woman's attorney told jurors Tuesday. Attorney John Osborne said in his opening statement that Dr. Dorothy Lurie did not practice "mainline psychotherapy," but a professionally marginal regimen "that put patients under hypnosis and drugs to bring things out." Osborne is representing Kristi Jones, 35, in her lawsuit against Lurie, who treated her between 1989 and 1994. But Lurie's attorney, Bill Daw, told state district court jurors that his client followed accepted professional techniques in treating Jones for multiple-personality disorder. He said Lurie has never used hypnosis. "If my client was in the lunatic fringe, then the American Psychiatry Association must now be considered the lunatic fringe because it has a manual for multiple-personality disorder and how to treat it," Daw said. The trial, which visiting state District Judge Pete Andrews said may take up to two weeks, will center on the extent that therapists should be held liable for following practices they believed to be acceptable. Jones, who said she came to believe she had as many as 800 personalities and ate the hearts of her own fetuses after being impregnated six times by her father, sued her therapists in 1995 after dropping a lawsuit charging her parents had subjected her to satanic rituals. Jones initially sued some 20 therapists and doctors, Daw said, but all the other cases have either been settled confidentially or dropped. Osborne said a doctor who witnessed Lurie give Jones sodium amytal -- a barbiturate that produces a hypnotic effect -- to "get to the bottom of (Jones') Nazi programming" wrote a memo that the patient and therapist had a "shared insanity." The doctor threatened to quit the case unless Lurie stopped "this wild abnormal method of therapy," Osborne said. He also said Jones had no major psychological problems before she saw Lurie, but the therapist helped turn Jones into "a basket case" after Jones said she had been sexually abused at age 4 by a stepgrandfather. "Dr. Lurie wrote," Osborne said, "that `The primary goal of my therapy is for (Jones) to believe her memories are true, i.e., she was a murderer and cannibal.' " Because of her mental anguish, Osborne said, Jones has tried to kill herself several times. Daw said he would bring in "some of the finest psychiatrists in town" to show Lurie followed accepted treatment procedure. He said Lurie did not lead Jones to believe anything and that it was not his client's job to confront Jones about her beliefs. "My client did believe some horrible abuse was going on, but did she ever believe the specifics? Did they ever discuss it in detail? No," Daw said. "The kids (Jones' personalities) said they wanted (Jones) to believe there was satanic activity, or we're gonna hurt her until she believes us. To stop this, all Dorothy said is we should believe ... in the abstract." Lurie, 51, is principal of Hope Center Alternative School, a school in the Montrose area for wayward youths. Her husband, Jean-Claude Lurie, is vice president of operations for Whole Foods Markets. She said she came to the Houston area in 1987 because her husband was offered his present job. She completed a doctorate in school psychology from New York University in 1986. She said she may have been a licensed psychotherapist for one day before she first saw Jones. -- 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 DP for 11 year olds
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Vi, And then what do you do when you do all of this and the child looks at you and tells you to Fu** off, and walks out the door to do what they please. That is what happens now days. You can tell them their not allowed to do the privileges anymore but it doesn't matter, if they don't listen to you. If they don't listen to the rules in the house in the first place what makes you think they are going to obey the restrictions? Viola Provenzano wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Kathy, You remove their privileges and wow, do they ever shape up quickly! Think of "grounding" them, no televisiion, no telephone calls to or from their buddies, no desserts with their meals, meals in their room, no new clothes, abed by eight pm, no spending money. And one can think of so many more. If these sound trivial, in actual day-in, day-out practice they are devastating to the recipient and very effective IMO. Vi -- 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
