Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
QUESTION: Can I follow up a bit? Are you saying
then that whether or not she (OFF-MIKE) pretty
much decided that you were going to go ahead with
the lawsuit?
CAMPBELL: I did not say that. You said when
was the decision made, and I said it was at the end
of the day yesterday.
Yes, Frank.
QUESTION: You just mentioned an issue that
hasn't -- we never heard before -- the idea of formal
mediation. How would something like that work, and
who would propose it? (OFF-MIKE)
CAMPBELL: Well, I'm not going to discuss the
details of any nascent settlement negotiations that
may or may not have gone on up to this point. I will
answer your question and say the issue, the
suggestion of mediation has been made, and has
been made by our side of course in this case.
And in terms of what are the formalities or what are
the structures that are available for that, Texas is a
great state for mediation of litigation. There are
numerous statues on the books called alternative
dispute resolution statutes, and there is an entire
framework already set up to conduct formal
mediations with an independent, third party, neutral
mediator. There are many, many qualified, highly
trained mediators in this city and in this state and
even around the country, and particularly in other big
cities.
And we would be most open to accepting any highly
qualified mediator to assist in negotiations for
settlement of this case.
Unfortunately, to date, the other side has not been
willing to consider that.
QUESTION: But the issue has been raised. Is it
currently on the table somewhere?
CAMPBELL: Nothing is currently on the table right
now.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)...
CAMPBELL: Well, on the second question first,
we are really not going to reveal any of our strategy
in terms of appeal right now, timing or anything else,
other than the issues that I've talked about.
As I think probably everyone in this room knows,
the Supreme Court is considering right now at least
three very important Title VII, or sexual harassment,
cases, which may have some bearing on the outcome
of this appeal.
So there are a number of issues that are up there in
the air timingwise that we don't have any control
over.
In terms of expenditures by the Rutherford Institute,
again, I'll leave that up to John. He may elect not to
answer that. He's free to answer that if he wants to.
WHITEHEAD: Expenses so far -- we're talking
about legal expenses, not legal fees, not anything
paid to lawyers for time -- have run close to
$300,000. And again, that's legal expenses. That's
deposition costs, expert witnesses, plane flights,
foods (ph), and all the things it takes to prepare a
case.
At some times, up to 20 lawyers have been working
on this through the Rutherford Institute, as well as
the
main lawyers here in Dallas.
CAMPBELL: Tom.
QUESTION: I know you don't want to talk about
new strategy, but the White House people are
cockily (ph) saying this week that they don't care if
you go to court or not. Their strategy is the same.
They are going to pound your client's credibility, and
they are going to pound her into submission.
I'm wondering, with that kind of hardline approach
by Clinton's camp, are you considering some kind of
change in tactics?
And a related question -- does this mean that while
your appeal is going on you cannot pursue any more
evidence?
CAMPBELL: My, that's a lot of questions.
QUESTION: Just give a shot at it.
CAMPBELL: Yes, right.
In terms of the pounding, assuming that the other
side has said that -- and I don't know what they've
said -- you know, basically the discovery is over. So
the pounding opportunities are over. There isn't
going to be any more pounding, certainly not of our
client directly.
Now, in terms of lawyers beating up on each other,
sure, that's going to go forward the whole rest of the
case, whether it's at the appellate level or at the
trial
level. But that's motions and countermotions and
briefs and counterbriefs and all that kind of stuff.
And if the other side thinks we are not accustomed
to that yet, they're wrong. Obviously, we are.
In terms of can evidence gathering continue to go on,
well, I guess that depends on what you mean by that.
Formal discovery cannot go on while the appeal is
pending -- that is, you can't take formal depositions;
you can't send interrogatories; that kind of time.
Informal discovery -- that is, continuing to gather
evidence of, for example, other women -- that can
go on. I'm not going to say it's going to. I'm not
going
to tell you what we are going to do. But that can
certainly go on.
And eventually, some of those efforts or searches or
other evidence-gathering may bear fruition by
coming into the courtroom.
We'll just have to see.
I'm sorry, Michael. We're keeping you awake.
Yes, ma'am.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: I'm wondering -- I guess it's probably
to Mr. Whitehead question -- for the appeal, will the
Rutherford Institute being covering any of the legal
fees for the lawyers or will that be covered
otherwise?
CAMPBELL: Again, that's something I'll let John
address. And he can either answer it or not answer
it. It's up to him.
WHITEHEAD: The Rutherford Institute was
founded in 1982. It's about 16 years old, and over
that period of time, occasionally, we have awarded
litigation grants of no sizable amount when attorneys
get into what we call extended litigation which, of
course, this is.
And we've said that we will cover all the legal
expenses. There will be a legal expense budget, and
if at all possible, we would like to help with some
legal grants in this case. But again, that would be
part
of any kind of legal expense budget that we would
put together.
CAMPBELL: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: The judge has reportedly
(OFF-MIKE) support when she had to sue after the
(OFF-MIKE). Could you or she talk a little bit
about what that was in detail and how that impacted
your decision before that court?
CAMPBELL: I'm sure she could, but we won't let
her. So I will.
It's been my observation in traveling across the
country with Paula Jones and her husband that
inevitably, in airports, in taxicabs, on the street,
wherever we go, nameless people will come up and
shake her hand or want her autograph and offer their
support.
Now they don't write checks or anything like that.
But they say -- Ata baby, keep at it -- that kind of
thing. So we have seen that kind of anecdotal
support.
In addition, my office -- I know, and I think Suzie as
well -- and I know the Rutherford Institute gets
many calls and many letters of support daily.
And that has continued, in fact to an extent it has
picked up after the dismissal order was issued. And
again, nameless, faceless people from across the
country send those letters and call and say -- Keep
at it. Don't give up the fight. We're behind you 100
percent. Please don't drop this case.
Again, that's anecdotal. We haven't done any kind of
a formal polling or survey, but we obviously -- we
passed those messages on to Paula Jones, and I
think she feels some support from that.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Was there any point after the judge's
(OFF-MIKE) where Ms. Jones has not wanted to
appeal the case?
CAMPBELL: Well, you'd have to address that
question to Ms. Jones, which I won't let you do.
And I'm not going to reveal anything that she
specifically said to us. I would say that, just as a
human being, if you had been through four years of
this kind of attack dog tactics that have been foisted
upon her, and then the judge summarily dismissed
your case, you might have some reservations.
And Paula is certainly a normal human being.
SUSAN CARPENTER-MCMILLAN,
ADVISER TO PAULA JONES: We're going to
take one more question.
CAMPBELL: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: What has been missing in all of this
has really been an outspoken support from a large
women's rights -- or (OFF-MIKE) have you heard
anything from NOW, from anybody, any major
group that supports women's rights within the last
two weeks since all of this has come about?
CAMPBELL: The short answer is yes, but let me
bring John up here. He has some more anecdotal
responses, I think, he can give to you.
And I would just say in conclusion on that point that
we certainly hope, now that the appeal is going to go
forward, that we will see some more formal support
from the large women's groups.
As I'm sure you know, amicus curiae briefs are
certainly accepted by the federal courts on appeal,
and we'd like to see some of those in this appeal.
John.
WHITEHEAD: One of the things that we knew
was missing when we were headed toward trial was
support of women's rights groups. But over the last
couple of weeks, especially since the April 1st ruling
by Judge Wright, a number of women's groups have
come forward.
The National Organization of Women, Martha
Davis, one of their legal directors, has criticized
the
decision. And that's heartening. And I think that's
why I say is one of the wild cards -- and hopefully,
the appeal process is that we will get support of
women's groups, and I think that is so key. It is a
women's rights issue, and women should be behind
this 100 percent.
CAMPBELL: Thank you.
--
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
