Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
I went to the site where each state has their laws on the net, and
Arkansas is one of the very few that isn't on there, so I couldn't get
the exact law. It would be interesting to see just what it says though.
The author of the law kept saying over and over that this harassment law
is an employment law and is not a sexual law.
I heard something said on another show about "outrageous behavior" but
also heard that it did not apply to this law.
And the one thing that really won it for Clinton is the fact that Jones
sought no professional help whatsoever to back up her claim that she was
emotionally devastated by this whole incident. Even her handler
admitted that. Which to me is really strange. I would think that her
attorney's would have known that. But obviously they didn't.
According to every legal person that I have heard since the suit was
overthrown, if Jones does decide to appeal they don't think that it will
go anywhere. Also if this had not been the President and just some CO
from Pepsi or another big company, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it
did.
Whatever happens, it can't possibly get to court now until Clinton is
out of office, and by that time no one will even give a darn.
Sue
> HI Sue,
>
> And that's the point I keep making here. Unless someone understand the
> specificity of the law in Arkansas that covers these allegations it is
> impossible to fault the judge for making a biased decision. I read today
> that it was not what the judge thought was "outrageous" behavior, but
> what the law said had to be present to comprise outrageous behavior.
> THAT is what the judge had to base her ruling on.
>
> Clearly this judge does not like Clinton nor does she come close to
> approving his alleged actions. Her duty was to follow the law and that
> is what she did.
>
> Bill
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
