[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Mac,
>moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Evenin,
>If Clinton's sexual past is fair game in showing a pattern of behavior in
the >case of Jones v. Clinton
It isn't if it does not show that he has a pattern of propositioning women
in the same way he propositioned Jones, if it does not show an abusive
pattern such as that claimed by Jones, if it does not show a favoritism for
those who comply or intimidation of them to keep quiet, or retaliation
against those who do not.
Clinton's private sex life otherwise is beyond any legal action.
>and Jones claims she now has a "sexual aversion" despite having
>sex anyway then why cannot her sexual history be used to refute her claim?
> ...Mac
If "sexual aversion," whatever the hell that is, can be refuted by Jones'
sex life it is pertinent.
Got any ideas how that would be done? Think even Masters and Johnson could
do that?
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
