Re: LI Princess diana Will
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue from my understanding and I may be wrong on this is her personal property, the one example they gave was her cars and clothing. That is what I see as her "chattels" and she does give them permission to sell her chattels. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: This is interesting. What are chattels, do you know? Sue For those who would like to read Princess Dian's will it's at the following link: http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/newsmakers/wills/diana/part1.html -- 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 -- 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 Wednesday's Jokes
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: During an Army war game a commanding officer's jeep got stuck in the mud. The C.O. saw some men lounging around nearby and asked them to help him get unstuck. "Sorry sir," said one of the loafers, "but we've been classified dead and the umpire said we couldn't contribute in any way." The C.O. turned to his driver and said, "Go drag a couple of those dead bodies over here and throw them under the wheels to give us some traction." WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING The Center of Disease Control in Atlanta, GA announced today that the President has PROVEN that you CAN get sex from aides! But someone sent me this addendum: There has been an unconfirmed rumour surfacing that as part of their training, the President is teaching interns how to wrestle. First hold taught: a Full Willey Nelson A customer in a Boston Irish pub goes up to another customer and says, "Excuse me, but where are you from?" "Why I'm from Ireland," comes the answer "No kidding? Why I'm from Ireland, too! Let's have a drink to Ireland." And so they do. Then the first customer asks, "And what city are you from?" "Why, I'm from Dublin." "You don't say. I'm from Dublin, too! Let's have a drink to Dublin." And so they do. Then the first customer asks, "And what school did you go to in Dublin?" "Why, I went to St Mary's." "It can't be! I went to St. Mary's, too! Let's have a drink to St. Mary's." And so they do. Then the first customer asks, "And what year did you graduate from St. Mary's?" "Why, I graduated in 1964." "This is incredible. I graduated in 1964, too. Let's have a drink to the Class of '64." And so they do. Another customer walks in to the bar and goes up to the bartender. "What's up, Mike?" he asks. "Oh, nothing unusual," says the bartender. "The O'Malley twins are drunk again. --- Top Ten Signs Your Company is going to downsize Offensive to CEO's 10. Company Softball Team is converted to a Chess Club. 9. Dr.Kevorkian is hired as an "Outplacement Coordinator". 8. Your best looking women in Marketing are suddenly very friendly with the dorky Personnel Manager. 7. The beer supplied by the Company at picnics is Schlitz. 6. Weekly yard/bake sale at Corporate Headquarters. 5. Company President now driving a Ford Escort. 4. Annual Company Holiday Bash moved from the Sheraton to the local Taco Bell. 3. Employee discount days at the local "Army Navy Surplus Store" are discontinued. 2. Dental plan now consists of a Company supplied kit (String, pliers and 2 aspirin). 1. Your CEO has installed a dart board in his office marked with all existing departments in the Company. --- How to Loose Weight Without Exercise Here's the guide to calorie-burning activities and the number of calories per hour they consume. Beating around the bush. . . . . . . . .75 Jumping to conclusions . . . . . . . . 100 Climbing the walls . . . . . . . . . . 150 Swallowing your pride. . . . . . . . . .50 Passing the buck . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Throwing your weight around (depending on your weight). . . .50-300 Dragging your heels. . . . . . . . . . 100 Pushing your luck. . . . . . . . . . . 250 Making mountains out of molehills. . . 500 Hitting the nail on the head . . . . . .50 Wading through paperwork . . . . . . . 300 Bending over backwards . . . . . . . . 75 Jumping on the bandwagon . . . . . . . 200 Balancing the books. . . . . . . . . . .25 Running around in circles. . . . . . . 350 Eating crow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Tooting your own horn. . . . . . . . . .25 Climbing the ladder of success . . . . 750 Pulling out the stops. . . . . . . . . .75 Adding fuel to the fire. . . . . . . . 160 Wrapping it up at the day's end. . . . .12 To which you may want to add your own favorite activities, including: Opening a can of worms . . . . . . . . .50 Putting your foot in your mouth. . . . 300 Starting the ball rolling. . . . . . . .90 Going over the edge. . . . . . . . . . .25 Picking up the pieces after. . . . . . 350 Counting eggs before thay hatch. . . . . 6 Calling it quits . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 --- ACTUAL Warnings on labels from various countries: USA: An insect spray boasts "Kill all insects", but adds "Warning - harmful to bees." (Very thoughtful, that). SWEDEN: On the packaging of a chainsaw: "Do not try to stop chain with hands." BRITAIN: Marks Spencer bread and butter pudding has a warning on the box bottom: "Take care - product will be hot after heating." From Rowenta: "Do not iron clothes on body." From Boots (chain of pharmacies manufacturer of pharmaceuticals), on a cough syrup for young children urges: "Do not drive car or operate machinery. Avoid alcoholic drinks." (This must be meant for *very* precocious kids). ITALY: Label on a cigarette lighter: "Do not light flame near the face." KOREA: On the box of a kitchen knife: "Warning - may be dangerous to children." (Translation
Re: LI Question for Kathy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, Again, the issue with Lewinsky is that they have her on tape encouraging Tripp to lie under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case. That has the potential for prosecution of a felony. So she wants full immunity. I also think there has been lying on all sides of this issue, but I think that Clinton is much too smart to lie under oath. So I tend to believe what he said under oath. I suspect that the Willey incident could have involved a rather heavy and consensual make out session. But everything is speculation based on what we see in the media. Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:06:16 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: This thing has gotten so intertwined in lies from all sides, I don't know how anyone can believe anyone anymore. I know that the minute I think I have it figured out someone comes up with something to refute the person or story. Maybe that is what they are all trying to do, confuse the issue so much, that we will all get sick of it, and that will be the end of it. Lying under oath, seems to be no big deal here either. Look at Monica. Her lawyer said that she would stand by her signed affidavit *unless* she got immunity. :) What is that, anyway??? Sue HI Sue, I think it's obvious that Willey lied several times. So which story are we supposed to believe? Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI CBS News Won't Release Bennett Tape
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, LOL...well that explains it! Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:25:14 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CBS News Won't Release Bennett Tape NEW YORK (AP) -- CBS News rejected a White House request Wednesday to release a transcript or tape of the full 45-minute interview given by presidential lawyer Robert Bennett this weekend in response to Kathleen Willey. _ 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 Question for Kathy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hello Doctor, Where is Jeff Goldblum when we need him. G With our luck we would train a shoulder fly and after a particularly interesting session between Clinton and some woman the last thing that would happen is that Clinton would swat and kill our fly before he could report back to us. :) Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:07:28 -0800 "dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill - this goes way way way back, but I recall that in describing the "omniscient" intelligence (knows all, sees all "objectively"), Henry James posited a "shoulder fly" that just perches there and observes. Such a creature would know a lie from a truth, as far as perception, cognition, and appearances - but then, oh well, how much truth can fit into a fly brain? C U soon, :) LDMF. William J. Foristal wrote:- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I think it's obvious that Willey lied several times. So which story are we supposed to believe? Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:28:36 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I have heard this, but the depo that says she didn't talk to anyone on the day she went to the WH, the same day her husband was killed, was *signed by her under oath*. That makes it more important, IMO, than what her publisher is saying. Although he is probably telling the truth. The problem I have with this though is that Trapp says she talked to her about what happened. So someone is lying. A lot of someones. Sue Sue HI Sue, The publisher is also saying that the original story they came to him with concerning the book deal is a different story from what she is now telling. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues 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
LI BrainBenderz: Vera's Preference
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -=Today's Puzzle: Vera prefers her dates to be tall, dark, and handsome. 1) Of the preferred traits - tall, dark, and handsome - no two of Adam, Boyd, Cary, and Dirk have the same number. 2) Only Adam or Dirk is tall and fair. 3) Only Boyd or Cary is short and handsome. 4) Adam and Cary are either both tall or both short. 5) Boyd and Dirk are either both dark or both fair. Who is tall, dark, and handsome?* -=Yesterday's Answer: One To Answer For Three - From statement 1, A must be the Midrorean. The statement would be false if made by the Sororean and true if made by the Nororean, neither of which would be possible. Since statement 1 is truthful, and made by the Midrorean, statement 2 is false; B is the Nororean. Statement 3 is truthful and C must be the Sororean. -- 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 WARNING!!! Gullibility Virus!!! FORWARD THIS TO EVERY HUMAN ON EARTH
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Help your gullible friends the next time you receive a virus hoax. * WARNING, CAUTION, DANGER, AND BEWARE! Gullibility Virus Spreading over the Internet! * WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Institute for the Investigation of Irregular Internet Phenomena announced today that many Internet users are becoming infected by a new virus that causes them to believe without question every groundless story, legend, and dire warning that shows up in their inbox or on their browser. The Gullibility Virus, as it is called, apparently makes people believe and forward copies of silly hoaxes relating to cookie recipes, email viruses, taxes on modems, and get-rich-quick schemes. "These are not just readers of tabloids or people who buy lottery tickets based on fortune cookie numbers," a spokesman said. "Most are otherwise normal people, who would laugh at the same stories if told to them by a stranger on a street corner." However, once these same people become infected with the Gullibility Virus, they believe anything they read on the Internet. "My immunity to tall tales and bizarre claims is all gone," reported one weeping victim. "I believe every warning message and sick child story my friends forward to me, even though most of the messages are anonymous." Another victim, now in remission, added, "When I first heard about Good Times, I just accepted it without question. After all, there were dozens of other recipients on the mail header, so I thought the virus must be true." It was a long time, the victim said, before she could stand up at a Hoaxees Anonymous meeting and state, "My name is Jane, and I've been hoaxed." Now, however, she is spreading the word. "Challenge and check whatever you read," she says. Internet users are urged to examine themselves for symptoms of the virus, which include the following: o The willingness to believe improbable stories without thinking. o The urge to forward multiple copies of such stories to others. o A lack of desire to take three minutes to check to see if a story is true. T. C. is an example of someone recently infected. He told one reporter, "I read on the Net that the major ingredient in almost all shampoos makes your hair fall out, so I've stopped using shampoo." When told about the Gullibility Virus, T. C. said he would stop reading email, so that he would not become infected. Anyone with symptoms like these is urged to seek help immediately. Experts recommend that at the first feelings of gullibility, Internet users rush to their favorite search engine and look up the item tempting them to thoughtless credence. Most hoaxes, legends, and tall tales have been widely discussed and exposed by the Internet community. Courses in critical thinking are also widely available, and there is online help from many sources, including: DOE Computer Incident Advisory Capability http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html Symantec Anti Virus Research Center http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/index.html McAfee Associates Virus Hoax List http://www.mcafee.com/support/hoax.html Dr. Solomons Hoax Page http://www.drsolomon.com/vircen/vanalyse/va005.html The Urban Legends Web Site http://www.urbanlegends.com Urban Legends Reference Pages http://www.snopes.com Datafellows Hoax Warnings http://www.Europe.Datafellows.com/news/hoax.htm Those people who are still symptom free can help inoculate themselves against the Gullibility Virus by reading some good material on evaluating sources, such as: Evaluating Internet Research Sources at http://www.sccu.edu/faculty/R_Harris/evalu8it.htm Evaluation of Information Sources at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/evaln.htm Bibliography on Evaluating Internet Resources at http://refserver.lib.vt.edu/libinst/critTHINK.HTM Lastly, as a public service, Internet users can help stamp out the Gullibility Virus by sending copies of this message to anyone who forwards them a hoax. * This message is so important, we're sending it anonymously! Forward it to all your friends right away! Don't think about it! This is not a chain letter! This story is true! Don't check it out! This story is so timely, there is no date on it! This story is so important, we're using lots of exclamation points! Lots!! For every message you forward to some unsuspecting person, the Home for the Hopelessly Gullible will donate ten cents to itself. (If you wonder how the Home will know you are forwarding these messages all over creation, you're obviously thinking too much.) * ACT NOW! DON'T DELAY! LIMITED TIME ONLY! NOT SOLD IN ANY STORE!
Re: LI Welcome Back Terry
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Welcome "home". Glad to see you back. :) Sue Hi All I want to welcome back Terry to the Law list :) It's good to have you back Terry and I look forward to see your posting again :) -- 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 Re: Tabloid Talks About Willey Interest
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tabloid Talks About Willey Interest WASHINGTON (AP) -- A supermarket tabloid said today it pursued an interview with presidential accuser Kathleen Willey for six months, and that last month her lawyer indicated she might be willing to sell her story for $300,000. Phil Bunton, editor of Star Magazine, said his publication countered with an offer of $50,000 to Mrs. Willey's lawyer, Dan Gecker, but the idea fizzled after Mrs. Willey gave an interview to ``60 Minutes'' last weekend. ``We've been trying to persuade Kathleen Willey to talk to us for about six months now, and basically some time in the last month Mr. Gecker said she might talk for $300,000,'' Bunton said. ``It seemed to be a number that he was really sort of fixated on and was not prepared to bend on,'' he said. The tabloid's disclosure, first reported in today' editions of The Daily News in New York, is the latest to raise the possibility that Mrs. Willey may have had a financial motive in coming forward with her allegation Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance. Court records indicate Mrs. Willey has six-figure debts left over from before her husband committed suicide in 1993. Mrs. Willey, both in the ``60 Minutes'' interview and in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, has described the alleged advance she said occurred during a Nov. 29, 1993 meeting in the Oval Office when she came to ask the president for a paying job at the White House, where she was working as a volunteer. On Wednesday, the California book publisher, Michael Viner, said Gecker approached him about a possible book deal for $300,000 but that Mrs. Willey's account last Sunday night on ``60 Minutes'' was ``a different story'' from the one given by her lawyer during the book talks. Also Wednesday, a former friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, released a sworn affidavit in which she alleged Mrs. Willey asked her to lie about the encounter with Clinton to a reporter last year. Gecker has not returned repeated phone calls to his office and home in recent days seeking comment. Bunton said his tabloid considered the $300,000 figure suggested by Gecker as ``too steep for what we understood was basically the one incident'' with Clinton. The editor said ``we sort of countered and said said maybe we would be able to pay her $50,000 but we needed to know what she had to say and whether it was more than what had been written in Newsweek'' which published an article last year that first disclose the Willey allegations. Bunton said during the discussions Gecker gave the magazine ``very vague, titilating hints that there was more to the story than what had come out at that time'' but no specifics. -- 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 Trooper: Jones Sought Out Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Trooper: Jones Sought Out Clinton WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Arkansas trooper who is a co-defendant in the Paula Jones lawsuit testified that she initiated a meeting with then-Gov. Bill Clinton in a hotel suite after remarking at a conference that he was ``good-looking'' and had ``sexy hair.'' Trooper Danny Ferguson, in a deposition in the Jones case, contradicted Mrs. Jones in describing how events unfolded before he escorted her to Clinton's suite on May 8, 1991. Mrs. Jones contends that Clinton and Ferguson conspired to get her to the room, where she said Clinton made a crude and uninvited sexual advance. She said she rejected Clinton and eventually was denied advancement and proper raises in her job at the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. She also maintains that Ferguson initiated the encounter by handing her a slip of paper with Clinton's room number and telling her, ``The governor would like to meet you.'' The state worker, who was at the state conference registration desk, says that if Clinton merely wanted to meet her, he could have done so in the hotel lobby. In Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition, he said he didn't recall ever meeting Mrs. Jones, let alone making an unwanted sexual advance, and has denied doing anything to stunt her job advancement. The credibility of another Clinton accuser, Kathleen Willey, was challenged by a former friend, Julie Hiatt Steele. In a sworn affidavit made public Wednesday, Ms. Steele said Mrs. Willey asked her to lie about a 1993 incident in which Mrs. Willey alleged Clinton made an unwelcome sexual advance. Ms. Steele's affidavit said she had never heard of the 1993 encounter when Mrs. Willey called her in 1997 and asked her to tell a reporter that Mrs. Willey had confided the entire episode to her right after it happened. ``Mrs. Willey also asked me to describe her demeanor at the time as 'upset, humiliated, disappointed and harassed,''' Ms. Steele said in the affidavit. The House was struggling with what, if anything, it would do about Clinton allegations now being investigated by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas said that if Starr refers Clinton allegations to the House, the Judiciary Committee should handle it, while Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia has broached the possibility of establishing a special committee for the job. The Washington Post reported that Gingrich and Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., agreed Wednesday to have a small group of House members, primarily from Hyde's committee, conduct the initial examination of Starr's evidence. Two senior House Republican aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Gingrich and Hyde were close to an agreement. In another development, William Ginsburg, the lawyer for White House intern Monica Lewinsky, said he will be more cautious about talking to the media. ``I've learned a lot and I'm perfectly big enough to admit mistakes. I think I'm overexposed. I think I need to back off quite a bit now,'' he said. In the Jones case, Trooper Ferguson said in a Dec. 10 videotaped deposition that on May 8, 1991, Clinton had delivered the opening speech at the government conference in Little Rock's Excelsior Hotel, then mingled with reporters and participants and eventually chatted with Mrs. Jones and another state worker. Although the gist of Ferguson's story has been known previously, his deposition provides the most detailed account of his version and is his first sworn testimony on the matter. A transcript of Ferguson's deposition was among 700 pages of material filed by Mrs. Jones late last Friday in Little Rock -- along with Clinton's own deposition and one from Mrs. Willey. ``They were kind of giggling about the governor's pants being too short,'' testified Ferguson, who was Clinton's bodyguard that day. ``And they -- she (Mrs. Jones) said that she thought he was good-looking, had sexy hair, wanted me to tell him
LI Re: Prosecutor Proposes Ray Furlough
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Prosecutor Proposes Ray Furlough MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- A prosecutor is floating the idea of James Earl Ray receiving a medical furlough if he admits he killed Martin Luther King Jr., but his lawyer says that's out of the question. The 70-year-old Ray, seriously ill with liver disease, was denied a furlough last year. But prosecutor John Campbell said Wednesday that authorities ``may look at (Ray) a little differently if he just came clean and said, `I did this.' That might be the only option he's got.'' Ray defense lawyer Wayne Chastain said his client would rather die in prison than accept those terms. ``He's not going to confess to something he didn't do,'' Chastain told The Commercial Appeal on Wednesday. ``Ray has made his position clear.'' Ray pleaded guilty in 1969 to killing King, who was shot to death in Memphis on April 4, 1968, and received a 99-year prison sentence. But he recanted his plea days after making it and has been seeking a trial since. Ray claims he was framed for the killing, though the gun prosecutors say was used to kill King was found at the scene with Ray's fingerprints on it. Ray, suffering from cirrhosis of the liver and other problems, has been hospitalized repeatedly in the past 1 1/2 years, most recently March 8. He slipped into a coma March 11, but has since regained consciousness. He was listed in serious condition Wednesday. Campbell said he has received a series of phone calls from Ray defense attorney William Pepper seeking freedom for Ray. Campbell said he told Pepper ``my door is always open'' to discuss a furlough, but stressed only the state Department of Correction may grant one. State law allows furloughs of indeterminate length for inmates ``in imminent peril of death'' so they may spend their final months with loved ones and receive special care. -- 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 Re: Anita Hill Remarks Haunt Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anita Hill Remarks Haunt Clinton WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton is learning that his own words can hurt him just as much as those of Republicans and other critics. GOP lawmakers took remarks made years ago by then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton about Anita Hill's sexual harassment claims and aimed them directly at the White House on Wednesday. On Capitol Hill, they circulated copies of comments made about the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Democrats at the time supported Hill and defended her sexual harassment allegations against Thomas. In an October 1991 interview, Clinton blamed lawmakers of both parties for conducting a Senate hearing ``that reminded me of a trial where someone accuses someone else of a sexual offense and then an attempt is made to destroy the character of the victim.'' The campaign Wednesday was an attempt by Republicans to counter the White House release earlier this week of numerous friendly letters written to Clinton by Kathleen Willey, who claims Clinton made a sexual pass at her. The letters display a friendship between the two and some are even signed, ``Fondly.'' Presidential aides apparently released the letters to discredit Mrs. Willey. Republicans also searched the news archives for remarks by Vice President Al Gore -- then a senator from Tennessee -- and pulled out a floor speech in which he explained his vote against Thomas' confirmation. ``One of the things we've all been learning about on the subject of sexual harassment is what goes on inside the mind of a victim, which sometimes leads that person to keep silent about it and to continue maintaining a facade of friendship and an outward relationship so long as that secret is kept,'' Gore said. In another October 1991 interview, Clinton explained why he found both Hill and Thomas credible in their testimony. ``I believed them both a little bit,'' he said. ``My feeling after listening to the whole thing was that the truth was something that will never come out, that in their own way they both felt they were telling the truth.'' -- 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 DETAILS THAT WILL MAKE CONGRESS BLUSH
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many people don't take this report seriously, so I am just putting it here because I thought it interesting. Consider the source. Sue LEWINSKY DETAILS THAT WILL MAKE CONGRESS BLUSH; HOUSE MEMBERS TO PEEK AT STARR'S EVIDENCE **Exclusive** **Contains Graphic Description** While prosecutors in Kenneth Starr's office have not yet decided exactly what to include in their report to Congress regarding the Monica Lewinsky mess, one theme of concern is already taking place behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: How explicit is Starr's report going to be! House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde met Wednesday and agreed to send a small group of House members to examine evidence assembled by Starr's investigation, reports Thursday's WASHINGTON POST. The members hope to determine if there is any basis for the committee to consider impeachment charges. What will they find? A national television audience last week may have heard Kathleen Willey describe in graphic detail what she says was an unwanted sexual advance by the president, but, according to sources familiar with Lewinsky's tale, Willey specifics are Disney compared to the story the former White House intern relayed to friends -- including conversations caught on tape with co-worker Linda Tripp. There is concern on The Hill that the political scandal may very well turn Triple-X once transcripts of Lewinsky/Tripp conversations are given to Congress, or otherwise become public. As one senior congressional source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT: "No one here is looking forward to hearings on Monica Lewinsky's description of President Clinton's penis size." Lewinsky's graphic descriptions of what she claims was a sexual affair with the president has been the talk of the underground since the scandal broke. Example: As reported in this space last month, Lewinsky confided in Tripp details of a sexual encounter with Clinton that took place on the carpet of the Oval Office -- on the carpet of the presidential seal! It is not known if Lewinsky was exaggerating her contact with Clinton in conversations, but investigators have also been briefed on a supposed sexual episode Clinton had with Lewinsky as Clinton talked on the phone with then presidential adviser Dick Morris -- while Dick Morris himself was engaging in a sexual episode with a prostitute. Lewinsky called the session "Quadraphonic sex," a source close to the situation tells the DRUDGE REPORT. Dick Morris has strongly denied the episode ever took place. "If she's saying that stuff, the girl is really in outer space." Congressional hearings that may include these stories, as well as others, will be unprecedented in American history. The vision of congressmen exploring the torment Lewinsky said she went through after the president refused sexual penetration during one session, for example, is a nightmare scenario. "I continue to feel horror at the abuse of power and emotional anguish she has endured," Linda Tripp explained in a statement after the Lewinsky story broke. Tripp is set to tell-all to the grand jury in the coming weeks. What sex evidence will eventually be passed to Congress is a debate that has been under way inside of Starr's office, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Starr's office is currently working on a draft report. Thursday's WASHINGTON POST reveals that the independent counsel's office has not yet decided whether to supplement their Lewinsky report -- which it hopes to complete within two or three months -- "with evidence suggesting there have been patterns of perjury and obstruction in other areas of the Whitewater financial investigation, or to treat Whitewater issues in a separate report." Sue Schmidt breaking news again... And anxiety is beginning on The Hill. "We are not looking forward to turning the hearings into the Jerry Springer show," one well-placed congressional source said late Wednesday. "We will keep dignity and decorum, we will not present anything pornographic to the nation." What evidence actually will find its way into public view may all depend on who chairs the House committee looking into the matter, who gets the gavel. "If it's Henry Hyde... well, there is no way he will explore sex in much detail," said a Hill source. Sentiments also echoed over at Justice. A staffer in Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder's office recently whispered: "This is about the law." But while investigators and congressional leaders publicly maintain that Starr's search is focused on potential crimes of obstruction of justice, witness-tampering and perjury, it's the graphic sexual dynamic swirling around some of the possible crimes that may have Capitol Hill blushing this Spring. X X X X X CLIFFHANGER Vernon Jordan is still waiting to see just what Starr's grand jury does with the conflicting evidence that has been presented before them. After Jordan testified before the
LI House Group to Look At Starr's Evidence
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) met yesterday and agreed to send a small group of House members to examine evidence assembled by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation of President Clinton to determine if there is any basis for the committee to consider impeachment charges, according to officials who had been briefed by both men. No timetable was set, but the officials said they contemplate staff-level contacts in the near future with Starr on the status of his four-year investigation. Neither Gingrich nor Hyde has met with Starr, and their plans appeared to be proceeding on a separate track from those of the independent counsel. Lawyers in Starr's office are working on a draft report for Congress but have not yet determined its scope or timing. The Gingrich-Hyde agreement came after several days of public sparring over leaks suggesting Gingrich might bypass the Judiciary Committee -- the traditional venue for impeachment -- and appoint a select committee to consider the Clinton case. Officials said the speaker and the veteran Illinois Republican emerged from their one-on-one meeting "in tandem" on how the first steps toward possible consideration of impeachment charges will proceed. Their plan envisages appointment of a small group of House members, drawn primarily but perhaps not exclusively from Hyde's committee. The select panel would examine evidence assembled by Starr's probe of financial transactions by Clinton and his wife, primarily during the 1980s, and the more recent allegations of Clinton's lying about his relations with a number of women and trying to obstruct justice related to their testimony. Hyde, who bridled at earlier suggestions that Gingrich might preempt his committee, told the speaker he would be willing to accept some members from outside the committee in order to assure broader support in the House for whatever recommendations the smaller group might make, officials said. Sources have said Gingrich is concerned that some of the more partisan junior Republicans on the committee might damage the credibility of public hearings. Gingrich and Hyde agreed the panel would be bipartisan, presumably meaning that the Democratic leadership would decide the makeup of the minority side. Hyde recommended that the group examine Starr's evidence at the office of the independent counsel to avoid being bound by House rules making material in the files of any standing committee available to any member of the House. He said that would give Starr assurance that evidence critical to possible future criminal prosecutions would not become public inadvertently. Officials said the speaker and Hyde agreed that if the small group decided it had seen evidence sufficient to suggest the possibility of an impeachable offense, it might ask Starr to sum up the case against Clinton and ask the president's attorneys to offer their rebuttal. Only then, according to the plan, would this group recommend to the Judiciary Committee whether a formal impeachment investigation be launched. Starr's office already is preparing a report for Congress detailing the evidence of possible perjury and obstruction by Clinton in the Monica S. Lewinsky matter. The independent counsel's office has not yet decided whether to supplement that report -- which it hopes to complete within two or three months -- with evidence suggesting there have been patterns of perjury and obstruction in other areas of the Whitewater financial investigation, or to treat Whitewater issues in a separate report. Starr's office also has been considering timing and procedural issues that could be dramatically affected by the current Gingrich-Hyde scenario. Prosecutors have been mulling how quickly to dispatch the report -- whether, for example, to send it promptly even if it's not entirely complete, or to wait until testimony from all witnesses before Starr's grand jury is obtained, according to lawyers who have some knowledge of discussions taking place among them. Lewinsky, whose claims of a sexual relationship with Clinton in tape-recorded conversations with a friend sparked the current phase of the investigation, has not yet testified. For nearly two months, her lawyers have been sparring with prosecutors in an attempt to obtain complete immunity for any testimony. Starr has threatened her with prosecution for perjury related to an affidavit in which she denied any sexual relationship with the president, and the matter still could take many months to resolve. As Starr's prosecutors begin drafting their report, knowledgeable lawyers said they are concerned that they not look as if they are acting in a political manner -- either by rushing the report or taking so long that its completion coincides with the fall election campaign. Prosecutors also have been considering whether they need any sort of court approval to send to Congress
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I agree I don't think that it would ever leave her mind either. But I do think that under the circumstances that it would not be the first and most important thing on her mind either. I also think that if it did happen, over a period of a couple of months or so when her mind was on her husbands death and the financial problems, that the death of a spouse can bring on, possibly she talked to Clinton as well as Hillary and the incident became less important to her. Or at the very least not something that she would dwell on. Maybe he even apologized to her, and they decided to put it away and try to get on with their friendship. This of course is just speculation, but I can honestly see it happening this way. Didn't I see news footage of Hillary and Clinton at her husbands funeral. I think I did. Sue HI Sue, Yes the letters were dated and they were after the alleged incident. Also, she was very active in campaigning for Clinton's re-election in '96. I would think that her tragedy with her husband would have created an even higher level of anger and indignation about the incident if it happened the way she describes it. I can understand why she would not want to report it, however. But I don't think something like that would ever leave her mind. It would have to be a very traumatic thing to go through. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: LOL you are right about that. :) I used to be able to pretty much tell exactly when Simpson was going to show up again, because everytime things got quiet, there he was. Every two weeks for him. :) This isn't going to go away until they finally have some sort of hearings in congress about this. And with the popularity that this man has with the American public, there is no way that they are ever going to impeach him, IMO. Sue HI Sue, He came across much better on LKL, IMO, but Bennett doesn't have a very compelling presentation no matter where he is. The most noticeable difference was that he was prepared for the LKL appearance and I don't think he was prepared for the 60 Minutes appearance. Clinton was responding to reporters after his appearance at the high school. That's all they want to ask him about these days. Have you noticed the trend where as soon as things start to get quiet something radical happens to stir things up again? 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
LI Welcome Back Terry
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi All I want to welcome back Terry to the Law list :) It's good to have you back Terry and I look forward to see your posting again :) -- 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 Welcome Back Terry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi All I want to welcome back Terry to the Law list :) It's good to have you back Terry and I look forward to see your posting again :) -- Kathy E Thanks, Kathy and Sue. It will take me a while to learn who is here and what you all are talking about. I will confine myself for now to posting a general interest article on governmental operations. 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 Word From the Leftwing of The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OF CLOSETS AND CLINTON by Doug Ireland [Excerpts from an article in "The Nation." Doug Ireland was onetime media critic for the "Village Voice."] [The "Frank rule" for outing homosexuals is named for Barney Frank who ended an orgy of gay bashing by rightwingers by threatening to name some of their own. The rule, naturally, is that it is permissible to out gays only to stop gay bashing by the outees.] [-] The first indication that the Clinton White House might be violating the Frank rule came in late February, when MSNBC reported that Clinton loyalists had been leaking derogatory rumors about members of the independent counsel Kenneth Starr's staff, including matters of "sexual preference..." As both a journalist and as someone who's gay, my interest was sparked, and I began making calls to determine whether the outing accusations were true. Three members of the media confirmed to me that Sidney Blumenthal, the White House media counselor, had indeed been spreading such stories. They'd heard him do it. These reputable members of the Beltway media agreed to tell me what they knew only if guaranteed complete anonymity; they were afraid of losing access to White House sources, and of possible reprisals. Two said that Blumenthal told them directly of the same-sex orientation of a member of Starr's staff, and third said he had been present for a conversation in which Blumenthal made such a comment to a third person. The claims about Blumenthal's activities go beyond Starr's office. On the February 25 "Nightline," ABC's Chris Bury reported that Blumenthal "is not only suspected [of] leaking damaging material about Starr's staff, sources tell "Nightline" he has been disparaging aggressive reporters on the Lewinsky story to their colleagues in the media." Two of the members of the media I spoke to about the Starr allegations also said Blumenthal had described at least two other media figures to them as gay. One of those sources, as well as other people who know Blumenthal, described him as as fascinated by sexual gossip that they said he recycles as part of his defense of the Clintons. When I called Blumenthal, he branded the outing charges a "complete lie." When told my sources said they had heard the outing information from his lips, he reiterated, "They did not." People who know Blumenthal maintain that he is not a homophobe. [Interesting. A recruit perhaps who must overcome his reluctance to bash gays. :-} ] Reporters' fears of White House retribution are hardly groundless. The excellent new book by "Washington Post" media reporter Howard Kurtz, "Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine" (Free Press), recounts how Blumenthal, "still writing for 'The New Yorker' but increasingly whispering political advice to Hillary," had dreamed up an attack on "Washington Post" reporter Susan Schmidt for her coverage of the Clinton scandals that was to be used to undermine the respected reporter with her newspaper. Although dissemination of the critical assault on Schmidt was eventually squelched by presidential press secretary Mike McCurry, Kurtz's book is replete with details of other reporters considered guilty of lese-majeste who were frozen out of White House access or had complaints lodged against them with their bosses. While I was making my inquiries, a column by Michael Kelly, a senior writer for "National Journal," appeared in the March 5 "Post" under the heading "Clinton's Whisperers." Kelly wrote: "One particularly aggressive campaign involves a prosecutor who is a bachelor, and who has been the subject of smears concerning both his professional conduct and his past sex life...Other recent calls to Starr's office from journalists reportedly have concerned such pertinent matters as whether a member of the investigation was a closeted homosexual and whether another person was involved in a sexual relationship with a reporter." [-] Such conduct constitutes a fraud and a deception on gays who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, who in both his '92 and '96 campaigns received millions of gay-raised dollars... [The wily Chinese Communists got more for their money. There have been quite tangible benefits for them.] 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 Au Pair: Update/Kathy
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Actually after hearing the interview I agree with you about her going to London. This interview was done by a British television station, and really showed the bias. And actually it was kinda boring, IMO. But I did notice one thing, unless it was set up, the people of the little town she comes from are really behind her. They have the yellow ribbons hung all over town and are waiting for her return. A lot of them are antiAmerican when it comes to our justice system, and feel that Louise got screwed over. Maybe it would be better for all concerned if she was just sent home, with time served. Not for the Eapins of course, but for everyone else. Sue Hi Sue, I would bet that she would be just as reliable as the people they now have working those jobs. Perhaps more so. :) And I doubt that the people who supported her and contributed money to her will be upset because she chooses to live in London. I think they were just happy to see her get out of jail. The media tends to make such a big deal out of these cases that we tend to lose our perspective on things. I suspect that once the appeals court rules this will gradually slip out of the public interest. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Your speculation is as good as anyone else's on this matter. Who knows what really went through her mind. Now I hear that she and her lawyer were talking to the Star about them buying her story back in February. Bill On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:47:35 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I agree I don't think that it would ever leave her mind either. But I do think that under the circumstances that it would not be the first and most important thing on her mind either. I also think that if it did happen, over a period of a couple of months or so when her mind was on her husbands death and the financial problems, that the death of a spouse can bring on, possibly she talked to Clinton as well as Hillary and the incident became less important to her. Or at the very least not something that she would dwell on. Maybe he even apologized to her, and they decided to put it away and try to get on with their friendship. This of course is just speculation, but I can honestly see it happening this way. Didn't I see news footage of Hillary and Clinton at her husbands funeral. I think I did. Sue HI Sue, Yes the letters were dated and they were after the alleged incident. Also, she was very active in campaigning for Clinton's re-election in '96. I would think that her tragedy with her husband would have created an even higher level of anger and indignation about the incident if it happened the way she describes it. I can understand why she would not want to report it, however. But I don't think something like that would ever leave her mind. It would have to be a very traumatic thing to go through. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Although I do agree with you that no one should be convicted on sexual harassment just because someone accuses them of it. But you do have to admit, there rarely is any hard evidence in cases like this. It usually is a he said she said situation. So then what do you do? I didn't follow the Army sex case, but here was a situation of five women who all said that they were sexually assaulted, harassed, etc. And no one believed them. So what is a woman or a man, in some cases suppose to do. Sue HI Doc, LOL...look for the deep pockets. I feel very sorry for anyone who is sexually harassed and does not have the solid evidence to prove it. But I don't think the answer is to simply convict people based on what someone accuses when there is no solid evidence. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I know, I read that. I have to agree her credibility is shot. Even if what she said happened, I doubt that anyone is going to believe her now. Did you hear about the model in New York that came forward saying Clinton went after her? It has come out that she has a rap sheet, a very long rap sheet for bad checks, and other such things. Why do these people come forward when they know that their entire history is going to be splashed all over the papers. I can't figure that one out. Sue HI Sue, Your speculation is as good as anyone else's on this matter. Who knows what really went through her mind. Now I hear that she and her lawyer were talking to the Star about them buying her story back in February. 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-19 15:21:10 EST, you write: I didn't follow the Army sex case, but here was a situation of five women who all said that they were sexually assaulted, harassed, etc. And no one believed them. So what is a woman or a man, in some cases suppose to do. Sue Sue, I don't think it's necessarily true that no one believed them. A jury cannot convict just because it "believes" something. There must be evidence. And in this, as in most similar cases, the evidence was lacking. (My off the cuff answer to your rhetorical question is, don't get mad, get even.) Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: EMF/Jackie
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill There is some stuff written on this but I can't recall where I read it. Let me check a few sources and see what I can find on it. I know attitude has some bearing on why some people seem to be able to fight the odds, but I don't remember what factors were included in this. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, I think that religious beliefs will always have to depend on faith instead of proof. I like to think that scientists choose their areas of research based on what will be of most benefit to mankind, but I know that is wishful thinking. But I DO think it's worth studying why some people seem to be able to fight for survival against certain diseases and trauma while others die quickly without much of a fight. Is there something that can be taught that would enable everyone to fight for their life in these situations? Bill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:41:05 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill That is a good question--maybe that is why scientists in some respects shy away from studying these phenomena. Or it might strengthen religion if people could observe that a person does have a soul (life force) and that there are miracles because there are rare instances where this phenomenon does not follow the laws of nature. H, I guess I just don't know. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: _ 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 -- 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
St Louis was Re: LI Re: Disparity in Infant Mortality Rates
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Yep, that was the mansion. It was really interesting. We also drove to the haunted place on the campus of the university. Was great fun as it was something so different to do. Was even more fun that the tour of Budweiser. We also went to the Masters and Johnson Institute, the zoo, and the art gallery. See what we profs. do when we attend conferences : ). I guess it is a "go" for me to attend a 2 day seminar in Seattle this summer, but won't be able to have much free time at this one. Don't tell Kathy, but it is a computer seminar. Wouldn't she just ROTF. The great computer genius (me) is going to a conference so she can show others at school how to make good use of their computers--hahahaha. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, I know that when I went there it was a bastion of liberal thinking amidst a rather conservative neighborhood. This was during the Vietnam War and I remember students protesting the war being allowed time to make brief statements to classes about why they opposed the war. But I graduated in '73 and, aside from an annual donation, did not keep up with what was going on with respect to their curriculum. I'll see if I can find out about the sociology department. I know the restaurant you are talking about. I think it's the old Lemp mansion. Lemp was a prominent brewery in early St. Louis. And we did have a lot of ghosts in our city so the haunted houses are no surprise. :) Bill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:37:07 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, oh, Bill I think it was Washington U., they were gossiping about. I think it was talked so much because Washington faculty and administration were well known to be truly independent. They are suppose to have dropped sociology as a separate department and combined it with something else. No longer the topic of gossip though in academia. When I was in St Louis went on a haunted house tour--very interesting--you got a chance to see the city in a different way. Went to that resturant that is in that once millionaire's home. The one that had a tunnel to the brewery he opened from his house. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, There are several universities in St. Louis. University of Missouri has a campus there. Washington University (my alma mater) where John Danforth, one of the Ralston Purina heirs is chancellor. Webster University, Fontbonne, and a few others I can't remember right now. And there are a lot of companies like Anheuser Busch and Ralston Purina that have their roots based in St. Louis. Bill On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:41:32 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Is the U of St Louis the only college there?? I can't remember. It is the college that had Laud Humphreys as a faculty member. The gossip is that the faculty could not get along at all--differences in sociological perspective, etc. Part of the reason was that Humphreys was thought to have conducted unethical research for his dissertation. The administration said they were making a combined department--can't remember the title they gave it, maybe behavioral sciences or something like that--because of money considerations. But, of course, other reasons were thought by many. Oh the trivia you pick up sometimes in gossip. I really don't know much about Monsanto, so can't comment on what they do. But, St. Louis does have quite a bit of old wealth there don't they--Budweiser, etc. Went on a tour of haunted houses in St. Louis once when I was at my first conference. Very interesting city in more ways than one. jackief _ 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 -- 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 _ 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
Re: LI Friday The 13th: Evil Or Excuse? It doesn't hurt to be prepared:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Thank you, thank you, thank you. I bet Kathy is thanking you too. See Kathy, your teaching paid off--the learner is now a teacher bg. I will try this the next time I surf as a test. Boy, wait this I go to the computer seminar--they will really be impressed, don't you think. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Jusst highlight the address, then press control and c. Then go to where you want it put and press control and v. And you have it. That was part of my year long lesson Kathy gave me. :) Sue Hi Sue Now the big question--if I go to the site and want to included the address in an e-mail to someone, how do I make a link?? I know I have an insert icon and it says link, but I really don't know what to do with it. Oh the brilliance of me, sometimes. I have all this modern technology, but don't know what to do with what I have. -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. 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 Sleep Apnea
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue You know the ole' saying--if men had the first child. That may be a good area to be included in pre-nuptial instructions (?) that many churches now require. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Well let me put it this way..it might just get in the way of any further activities that bring on new ones. BG Yes, please let me know what you think of the book. :) Sue Hi Sue Don't know if that was one of the intentions of the manufacturer's, but might be a 100% safe measure of birth control VBG BTW--the book arrived--thanks so much. Looking forward to reading it. jackief -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. 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 This may be -- probably is -- a lie, but........
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc Guess you are the only lucky one, but of course I am not on AOL : ) jackief DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did all of you get this, or am I just one of the lucky ones? Doc Subj: BREAKING NEWS REPORT FOR AOL MEMBERS ONLY !! Date: 98-03-18 05:12:07 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Breaking News Report For AOL Members Only ! A news source close to the Monica Lewinsky investigation says that Kenneth Starr, the independent council investigating president Clintons alleged sexual improprieties, has been caught on video tape soliciting sexual favors from elderly male prostitutes in the employ of televangialist Jerry Falwell. It is not clear at this time why Mr. Falwell employs male prostitutes, but according to an unidentified source one or more of the gay prostitutes has come forward and implicated Kenneth Starr and Jerry Falwell in a romantic tryst. The source tells AOL that Mr. Falwell is in tears. Falwells spokesman says, Jerry is extremely angry and upset and has threatened to go on the Sam and Cokie show and tell all. Mr. Starr was reportedly seen fleeing his offices and clutching a large leather object with straps. A strange pall of silence has fallen over Washington. A spokesman from Starrs office, while smirking and winking, has reportedly said that Mr. Starr and Falwell had been very close friends. Starrs investigation into the Clinton sex scandal has apparently gone on hold while Starrs staff desperately scramble to find a way to defuse these latest shocking allegations to rock Washington. More on this fast breaking story as further developments leak. 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue I guess the pollers didn't ask any independents then or even someone who has no professed party affliation. Geez, now I can't have an opinion of my own that isn't influenced by my political leanings, excuse me all to heck. Had my students do a little off-the-cuff exercises. Asked them to tell me what they would do if they had to meet with a person they had heard was a womanizer. How would they handle it?? My 18 year old males and females had more moxy than Ms Willey. I guess that is why I didn't find it so credible in the first place. I guess I agree with Doc in this respect. IMO, once again, we see the idea of the woman who should have all the rights, but bear little responsibility for the consequences that occur when she takes unnecessary risks. Yes, all these women had the right to expect not to be harassed, but knowing the reputation of Clinton if all the stories can be believed, didn't they also have the responsibility to cut down their risks of being harassed? Just a thought. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I really found her very credible. She just seems like she was telling the truth. But now that the letters and the book deal has come out, I dunno, again. I keep going back to the fact that Starr has been trying all these years to get something on the President, and so far he has been unable to. This time though there is no doubt that either she is lying or the President is lying. Let's see if she gets brought up on charges of perjury. The latest poll taken say that the majority of the men in the country thought that she was telling the truth, whereas the majority of the women thought otherwise. But someone tonight explained that as being that the majority of the men are Republicans whereas the majority of the women are Democrats. BG Sue Hi Sue I don't know who leaked it finally, but I would imagine someone at the Pentagon after the digging started. Somehow I wonder if Tripp doesn't have a direct hotline to someone or something--like you say, she is always there in the background. I watched 60 Minutes too, as did Ed. Ed found her very creditable, but I was a little cynical. I kept wavering back and forth as she talked. I can see ole Bill (C) doing the number with Jones and Lewinsky, but somehow I would think he was a little smarter than to try it with one of his friend's wife out of the clear blue sky. I am not saying that she invited this if it occurred, but common sense tells me most people don't sh## in their own backyards, so to speak. It seemed in some instances though that she was trying to close up some of the arguments that the defense could suggest in the Lewinsky affair. One thing I caught (or thought I heard)--it wasn't in the Oval office, but his study, right?? Little detail, I know, but those little details are sometimes important. Another thing that bothered me somewhat is the naive, hesitant little girl that was on 60 Minutes (my, my, such cynicism this morning). This is no 21 year old intern and this was someone who did not want the story public. If someone had made my story public, I would not be this hesitant little woman--I would be angry that a friend had made a pass and a friend had made it public and drew me into this mess. But, I am not Willey. I have a tough time with Bennett sometimes--he is a good example of the good ole' boy network and their ideas about women. Remember his remark about Jones? And, sometimes I feel he is about to make another wonderful statement like he did then. So I am still waiting--but I still think the money could be spent in better places and I am wondering more about the deal where a private citizen cannot bring up ethics charges on a Congressperson, only another Congressperson is allowed to do that. Hmm. -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. 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 Another Woman
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
You know I can't help but wonder why the producers of 60 Minutes didn't ask
themselves why Willey was so willing to come on the program and tell her
devastating tale? I know I would wonder after she was previously a reluctant
witness. This whole mess to me really has gotten to me a "let's win--no
matter what methods we use to win" on both sides. Truly a sad commentary on
our political process. I guess my skepticism when I watched her on 60
Minutes saved me from feeling any letdown when all this other stuff became
public. The one thing that really riled me the most, however, was the
reaction of the feminists to this whole thing. To me, they sent out an
implicit message to all women that you had better be seen as a "worthy" cause
to be defended. I may have been the only woman that felt that, but I hope
not, especially after hearing a feminist badmouth a woman commentator for
daring to question Willey's allegations as she was a woman and should be
standing up for her. I know that I am not being clear in voicing my thoughts
about this, but hope you know what I mean.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Well now we know a possible motive for Willey. Apparently she has a book
deal in the works. Guess she gave up on Clinton finding her a job and
decided this might be an easier way for her to get out of debt. If the
book deal is a fact and not a spin.
Bill
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:16:23 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue and Dr. L
Here comes the ole' devil's advocate here.
Question: if Willey was so concerned about her husband's whereabouts,
why
was she making an appointment to see the President to ask for a job??
Wouldn't she be trying to find out where he was?? Where did the
husband
commit suicide (home, office, ?).
Second question: if Willey was one of the Clintons friends, which it
sounds
like they were, and Bill was really the 'womanizer--no time for work,
only
sexual games guy' that people are alleging, then she would surely be
aware
of his reputation--why would she believe he wouldn't do the same to
her ??
("I just couldn't believe this was happening") Remember she asked for
the
meeting, and I guess as a female I learned very young how to avoid
situations where I had to be alone with a man who was a known
womanizer--brought a friend, wandered in and sat down in a more public
area
to talk with him, etc.. This is not to excuse his behavior if he
really is
doing these things--hanging by his genitals might be an appropriate
punishment. (I wonder though how he got this far in public life if he
was
as horney as is implied by all these "true confessions" we are hearing
today
and had such poor lack of control over his physical responses. All I
see is
a walking "h#$%-on" if all these stories are to be believed. (I
apologise
for my language here).
Her story credible--yes, so was Mata Hari. Her telling of the story
theatrical--yes. The makeup was perfect, the hesitant little wounded
victim
demeanor was perfect, her emotions needed a little more rehearsal.
Now to poor, maligned Bill, if you believe the w.h.. His story
credible--not really. His telling of the story theatrical--yes. I
couldn't
have cast a better actor for the soap opera we are now staying tuned
to on a
daily basis, especially weekends when we know something will break.
"Days
at the Oval House" should win an emmy this year, I would think.
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
I'm not too good at doing that, but maybe we could get Kathy to do
it.
She is wonderful when it comes to those sorts of things.
I was impressed with this woman. I still haven't taken her word as
being the absolute truth, but I can't discount her either.
She sounded very sincere, and her story did sound very plausible,
IMO.
And she certainly didn't fit the image that we have been having of
these
women who are telling these stories. She was more mature, and came
across as not the kind of woman who would be soliciting sexual
advances.
Someone here is lying, and the problem now is to find out which one.
If
it is the President then he should step down, and let the country
get
back to what it should be doing. I just don't know how we are ever
going to find out who it is though that is lying. :(
It certainly was a bad day for Clinton, that is for sure. His own
Friday the 13th.
One thing that I did notice about Ms. Willey, she mentioned that her
husband was in real financial problems because he had stolen money
from
some of his clients. This was a similar problem that Susan McDougal
had. What is it with these people that the President was friends
with
anyway. Are they all a bunch of crooks?
Also another
LI Conjoined Twins
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Thanks for the article. It is really a thought provoking article, isn't it. jackief -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: The man's attorney and the women's attorney were on (I think) it was The Today show the other day. The man's attorney is now saying that he is suing one of the women in a civil court. I don't think he should be doing this, simply because the women's attorney is just hoping and waiting for the opportunity to go after him. :) She said things would be a whole lot different in a civil court as opposed to an army court. I think your advise is great. "Don't get mad, get even." And I think if this guy keeps pushing it he will find out that these women can and will get even. BG Sue Sue, I don't think it's necessarily true that no one believed them. A jury cannot convict just because it "believes" something. There must be evidence. And in this, as in most similar cases, the evidence was lacking. (My off the cuff answer to your rhetorical question is, don't get mad, get even.) 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 Media Trial
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy I may be wrong but didn't she, at first, deny that this had happened. I thought that this is partly where some of the problem has been. I may be wrong on this, so many have changed their stories that it is hard to keep track. But, if as I think happened, then she lied somewhere either at the beginning or at the interview with 60 minutes. I guess I feel like some do that we know Clinton has been lying or stretching/narrowing the boundaries on definitions and he is constantly being called on it. The same then should hold true for the women--all of them. And I am sorry but her demeanor did not send out a message of credibility to me, even before all the later stuff came out. I don't know of too many women who haven't been harassed if they have been in the workforce, military, or public service. And all the women I have talked to years later after the incidents[s] do not sit there like simpering idiots and sound like it is so difficult to discuss that they needed to be handled with "kid gloves." Also, she traveled in circles where her livelihood did not depend on getting and keeping a job with only one person or place of employment. There are many women who do not have choices in employment or bosses. She did--but continued to fawn on ole' Bill until it seems she saw greener pastures on the other side of the fence. jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill what I believe is what I have seen proven to me, I have proven to me that Clinton lied about his meeting with her. He has since changed his story. I have not seen her lie. I'm waiting for someone to point out to me where she lied, I'm also waiting for someone to show me where she has changed her story so often, as I have seen people here say she has. I haven't seen that at all. Now I'm ready to back up what I believe with consistent news articles all saying the same thing she has said. And I can easily show where Clinton has not been consistent. Yes you can easily try to allege she was a no talent nothing, but Bill the facts don't back you up, beleive it or not most no talent nothings are not able to donate thousands of dollars to a campaign or donate a lot of volunteer time. Watch what you allege, especially when your allegations can be proven to be false quite easily. You have jumped on the bandwagon of people who are guessing at things and instead of geussing you have now decided to turn those guesses into facts. I am surprised. Since when did you decide her motive for this interview? She clearly stated her motive but that wasn't good enough for some people they had to come up with something to draw blood, so what do they say, oh yes! She is a women who is mad she wants to get Clinton for NOT getting her a job like she asked. But here is my problem he did do that, and she did do the job. So what's the deal here folks? Attack anyone you can and make up things and state them as fact even though you have nothing to back you up? Nope I don't buy that. So now the new line is she did this to write a tell all book, well folks guess what she already did the tell all it was on TV I saw it along with a lot of people, she gave her story away for free folks. Last time I heard 60 minutes doesn't pay for interviews. Whats the next line going to be? That he rejected her and she was so enraged that she made this up? It's very easy to sling mud, the problem is make sure your tossing it the right way and that you have the right to sling it. I guess I could follow along like some and look at all the gossip and BS that is circulating, there is a lot of it. Yet I think I'll still refuse to do that. I'm going to go with the known facts and let others wallow in the juicy stuff. And my last line is for both sides of this issue, Clinton and Willey, I don't want to hear the gossip or guessing on either side of the issue, I want the facts. So far the facts aren't looking good for the prez so his team is tossing in the BS and that really stinks IMHO. BTW do you think Clinton has had any coaching? Or is he a naive little child in this whole thing? William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Kathy, It seems to me that you make similar assumptions in your choice to believe Willey. I thought she was the most credible accuser of Clinton so far, but the recent information we have seen after her 60 Minutes interview has really posed some questions with respect to her credibility. It is just as easy to make assumptions that she was disappointed that Clinton had not taken care of her better in the sense of getting her a high paying job so she found a better way to make money by lying to hype up a book she is writing. It seems that there are numerous people like Willey in both major parties who have no real talents of their own but somehow latch on to the power politicians in each party
Re: LI GOP Women Want Dems Outrage Outloud
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue In a hallway outside the Oval House?? Oh my!! jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GOP Women Want Dems Outrage Outloud ``I wish they would talk,'' said Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., one of a group of GOP women who met privately this week after Mrs. Willey's television interview. In a widely watched 60 Minutes broadcast on Sunday night, the former White House aide said Clinton fondled her in a hallway just outside the Oval Office in 1993. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Welcome Back Terry
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Welcome back--the water's fine jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi All I want to welcome back Terry to the Law list :) It's good to have you back Terry and I look forward to see your posting again :) -- 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 -- 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 Welcome Back Terry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Welcome back--the water's fine jackief You mean there's been some heat to warm it up? Thanks, Jackie. Good to hear from you again. 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 Question for Kathy
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: What I basically ment was that as far as lying under oath goes, it seems like in this case the fact that something is said under oath doesn't seem to make much difference. Monica swore under oath that she and Clinton didn't engage in sex. Now her lawyer is saying, "well, give her immunity and she will tell her story." So why should we believe anything she says under oath the second time around, when the first time around it was under oath also? As for Clinton lying under oath. I dunno, so far he hasn't changed his story and says he won't. He still says that he didn't engage in anything illicit. But that can be different in different eyes too. Even if he did lie and say that he hadn't had sex with her. Someone on Politically Incorrect brought out something that I hadn't thought of. What would people have to say about him if he had gotten up in front of the whole country and said, "Yes, Monica and I were screwing around in my office." That wouldn't have gone over too well either. Kissing and telling isn't exactly the kind of thing that any woman would look up to a man for doing. What he should have said was that it was no ones business what his sex life was, and that if they had any questions regarding running the country and his job, ask it, but leave his sex life where it belongs, private. It will never get to court, IMO. And Paula Jones won't win her lawsuit either. This thing has gotten completely out of hand. Clintons ratings are still high with the American people, and there is no way that they are going to impeach him, if for no other reason, for that reason alone. But that is just my opinion, and not one that anyone should take to the bank. :) Sue Sue Hi Sue, Again, the issue with Lewinsky is that they have her on tape encouraging Tripp to lie under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case. That has the potential for prosecution of a felony. So she wants full immunity. I also think there has been lying on all sides of this issue, but I think that Clinton is much too smart to lie under oath. So I tend to believe what he said under oath. I suspect that the Willey incident could have involved a rather heavy and consensual make out session. But everything is speculation based on what we see in the media. -- 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 Apologies and I'll get to it ASAP
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi All :) A quick note I offer my apologies first, there are a lot of postings I was addressed in over the last couple days, unfortunately I will not be able to reply in a timely matter right now, there is something else that is taking a bit of a higher priority, I am not implying the postings aren't important they are :) So please be patient I will get to them as soon as I can. I just wanted you to know I'm not sluffing y'all off but it may take longer than expected. I thank you for your patience :) And yes I know I haven't been doing the COTD this week I'll get back to that also, as soon as the other things settle down. Happy Posting :) -- 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 Jokes for Thursday
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTE: Dr. Jack Kevorkian recently presided over his 100th assisted suicide. In honor of this milestone, Top5 brings you... The Top 16 Ways to Celebrate Your 100th Assisted Suicide (Part I) 16 For #100, let's just say to Hell with that annoying "terminal illness" requirement. 15 Head for Times Square and wait for Dick Clark's blood pressure to drop. 14 Offer 1.9% GMAC Financing. 13 Set goal of trying harder -- the tobacco companies are still so far ahead in the league standings. 12 Same as with #1 -- dinner for 2 with "Big Lou" in the Detroit jail. 11 Update your website to read, "ONE HUNDRED dead people and no convictions yet!" 10 Line up next couple dozen clients by cranking Michael Bolton at the celebratory bash. 9 "I'm going to Defrost Walt Disney!!" 8 Call the boys at the Franklin Mint and tell them they can issue that centennial plate now. 7 Explain to President Clinton that you don't do *political* suicides. 6 Light a hundred candles on a cake, then freak everyone out by snuffing them out one at a time. 5 Just for the day, change your name from "Dr. Death" to "Dr.Hanky-Panky." 4 Appear on The Today Show as Willard Scott's "assistant." 3 Get a couple of hookers and give the back of that van some *live* action for a change. 2 "Bartender! Purple Kool-Aid for all my friends!" and the Number 1 Way to Celebrate Your 100th Assisted Suicide... 1 Pop open a cold one. Just be sure to put him back in his drawer after you've danced him around the morgue. - Take a break. 1. Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to? 2. Does the Little Mermaid wear an algebra? 3. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? 4. How do I set my laser printer on stun? 5. How is it possible to have a civil war? 6. If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting? 7. If God dropped acid, would he see people? 8. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? 9. If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too? 10. If the #2 pencil is the most popular, why is it still #2? 11. If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it? 12. If you're born again, do you have two bellybuttons? 13. If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry? 14. If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done? 15. Is a castrated pig disgruntled? 16. Why are hemorrhoids called "hemorrhoids" instead of "asteroids"? 17. Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them? 18. Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song? 19. What happens when none of your bees wax? 20. Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket? 21. If the black box flight recorder is never damaged during a plane crash, why isn't the whole airplane made out of the stuff? 22. Why is there an expiration date on sour cream? 23. If most car accidents occur within five miles of home, why doesn't everyone just move 10 miles away? --- Yet even more strange facts. If you sneeze too hard, you can fracture a rib. If you try to suppress a sneeze, you can rupture a blood vessel in your head or neck and die. Nearly a third of all bottled drinking water purchased in the US is contaminated with bacteria. Rats multiply so quickly that in 18 months, two rats could have over 1 million descendents. You are more likely to be struck by lightning that to be eaten by a shark. You are more likely to be infected by flesh-eating bacteria than you are to be struck by lightning. If you urinate when swimming in a South American river, you may encounter the candiru. Drawn to warmth, this tiny fish is known to follow a stream of urine to its source, swim inside the body, and flare is barbed fins. It will remain firmly embedded in the flesh until surgically removed. The soft plastic headphones used on airplanes create a warm, moist environment in the ear canal that is ideal for breeding bacteria. Wearing headphones for just an hour will increase the bacteria in your ear by 700 times. On a plane, if the passenger in your seat on the incoming flight had serious gas, then you are sitting on a cushion full of disease-causing microbes. Four sunken nuclear submarines sit at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. One, a Russian sub resting in deep water off of Bermuda, holds 16 live nuclear warheads. Scientists and oceanographers are unsure what the impact of the escaping plutonium will have, but warn that corrosion could create the proper chemical environment for a massive nuclear chain reaction. In 1994, electromagnetic interference (EMI) from a nearby cellular telephone captivated a power wheelchair at a scenic vista in Colorado, sending the passenger
LI For Steve and Vi
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the U.S. government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles? -- 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 For Steve and Vi
Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the U.S. government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles? Exactly my point why waste millions of dollars, and thousands of hours of research into something that doesn't exist. If any of you are at all skeptical about what I have posted then go to your GAO, and ask for all records related to Roswell AAFB, you will find that over 70% of the index documents have been illegally distroyed, due the saucer crash and documents related to human experiments performed at White Sands, in relation to your nuclear test program. In the near future I will look at my records and scan some of the most interesting documents I have into JPEG format, all those of you who are curious or want to debunk what I have been saying (I would welcome the debate) are more than welcome to a copy. Some of these are so good I had them imported from the US at my own expense. Go to Yahoo and look up Stanton Friedman (hes a good egg as they say over here), don't bother with Whitley Strieber though I'm not overly impressed. Steve Its 2am now I'm off to bed night, night everyone. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Whitewater: Tucker Plea agreement
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This agreement allowed former Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker to protect himself against further prosecution by independent counsel Kenneth Starr in return for a guilty plea to charges of defrauding the federal government by filing misleading bankruptcy papers. In return for the two dropped counts, the February 20, 1998 plea required that Tucker cooperate with Starr's Whitewater investigation and potentially to testify at trial for Starr. Since the plea, Tucker has appeared before Starr's Little Rock grand jury to give testimony, presumably about his knowledge of Arkansas land deals in which Tucker was involved and which may have included involvement by President Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Tucker said he agreed to the plea in order to save himself a prison term, which he said would have been a "death sentence" due to his ailing health. He will likely receive probation instead and will have to pay some back taxes. == IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. No. LR-CR-95-117 JIM GUY TUCKER PLEA AGREEMENT This Plea Agreement between the United States, by and through the Independent Counsel, KENNETH W. STARR, and his undersigned associates, and the Defendant, JIM GUY TUCKER and his attorneys, William H. Sutton and George D. Collins, is made pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This Plea Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire agreement between the United States and the Defendant regarding the Defendant's criminal liability in case No. LR-CR-95-117. This Plea Agreement resolves all of the Defendant's criminal liability involving those events set forth in the Indictment, including all criminal charges of conspiring to defraud the United States as set forth in Count Three. Nothing herein shall limit or in any way waive or release any civil claim, demand or cause of action, whatsoever, of the United States or its agencies relating to the conduct of the Defendant set forth in the Indictment in this case. This Agreement is limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Independent Counsel, and cannot bind other federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Upon the entry of the guilty plea to Count Three of this Indictment, the United States agrees that there will be no further federal criminal charges brought against the Defendant, JIM GUY TUCKER, provided he complies with all the conditions set forth in this agreement. Further, the United States agrees in the event Mr. Tucker's conviction in the first case, U.S. v. McDougal, Tucker McDougal, Case No. LR-CR-95-173, is reversed on appeal, there will be no retrial as to Mr. Tucker. The United States and the Defendant, JIM GUY TUCKER, and his attorneys, William H. Sutton and George B. Collins, agree upon the following: 1. The Defendant will enter a plea of guilty to Count Three of the Indictment in this case. Upon sentencing of the Defendant an Count Three of the Indictment, the United States will move to dismiss Counts One and Two of the Indictment. 2. The Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge contained in Count Three of the Indictment. 3. The Defendant understands that Count Three of the Indictment to which he will plead guilty carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years imprisonment; a fine of $250,000.00, or an alternative fine based on gain or loss; three years of supervised release; and any restitution ordered by the Court. 4. The Defendant agrees to fully and completely cooperate with the United States and provide complete, accurate and truthful information and testimony as to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Independent Counsel before any trial jury or grand jury if called as a witness before su@h tribunal. The Defendant will provide this cooperation on a continuing basis for as long a time as it may be needed, and his continuing cooperation is required for his compliance with the Agreement. The Defendant will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission, nor falsely implicate any person or entity. The Defendant will, at all times, tell the truth in any interviews, or as a witness, regardless of who asks the questions. The Defendant understands that a failure to provide complete and truthful information and testimony would be a breach of this Plea Agreement and that a false statement under oath would subject him to prosecution for perjury. 5. The Defendant agrees to continue to provide truthful information and will provide full and complete cooperation,
LI Re: Author: Willey left hate note -Cornwell ties event to her GOP move
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Richmond Times-Dispatch Thursday, March 19, 1998 Author: Willey left hate note Cornwell ties event to her GOP move Richmond celebrity novelist Patricia Cornwell says she lists herself among those who've felt the sting of Kathleen Willey's wrath. In a tale that may make the best-seller list of anecdotes spawned by the long-running sex, lies and videotape saga enveloping the White House, Cornwell says Willey trespassed on her property 4½ years ago and left a hate note and a stack of her books. A spokesman for Willey said last night he was unable to confirm whether the book delivery came from her. Cornwell was out of the state and could not immediately provide a copy of the letter. The alleged incident followed George Allen's comeback gubernatorial win in November 1993 over former Attorney General Mary Sue Terry, a victory aided in its last weeks by the well-publicized defection of Cornwell from the Democratic to Republican camp. She took with her a $10,000 campaign contribution. "She wasn't very fond of me," Cornwell said of Willey, a fervent Democrat whose firsthand account of an alleged Oval Office grope by the president captivated a national television audience Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes." According to Cornwell, the incident occurred soon after Allen's election and within days, she now realizes, of when Willey had the Nov. 29, 1993, meeting with Clinton. Cornwell, author of nearly a dozen best-selling crime novels and one of the world's wealthiest writers, described Willey as "a big Mary Sue Terryite." "Way back in 1993, after the election, she trespassed on my property -- that's the only way to put it -- when I lived in Windsor Farms, and left books and a very vicious letter on my doorstep." Cornwell said the signed note was written on Kathleen Willey stationery and blasted the author for what Willey termed a self-serving political agenda. "She said she was returning the books, which isn't true because I never gave them to her. . . . She said I was a disgrace to other women and that George Allen and I deserved one another.""It was very ugly and grandstanding." -- 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 Rolling/London: Background report
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a background report for those who are not familiar with Danny Rolling and Sandra London. = The state of Florida, acting under its Civil Restitution Lien and Crime Victims'Remedy Act of 1994 (also known as Florida's "Son of Sam" law), is attempting to seize approximately $21,000 that writer Sondra London made from the sale of serial killer Danny Rolling's story to the media. The law prohibits a convicted person or a person acting on behalf of the criminal from earning money from factual accounts of the convict's crime. Prosecutors allege that London is not entitled to the money she earned from the stories on Rolling that she sold to various media outlets because at the time of the stories, she was Rolling's lover. Therefore, the state argues, relationship makes London a person acting on behalf of Rolling, and not merely an objective reporter. London claims that her relationship with Rolling is irrelevant, and her stories on Rolling were serious journalistic ventures. The defendant argues that she deserves the money she has earned from her work and that this case is really a violation of her right to free speech under the First Amendment. The state wants to enforce a lien, or legal claim, on any profits connected to Rolling's that would go to London and Rolling. Prosecutors want the money to compensate the families of Rolling's victims and help pay his legal and prison housing bills. London is asking the court to find Florida's "Son of Sam" law unconstitutional because it restrains free speech. Romance with a Serial Killer Danny Rolling admitted to killing five college students in or around the University of Florida in Gainesville in 1990. In 1994, he pleaded guilty to five counts of first-degree murder, three charges of sexual battery, and three counts of armed burglary in the deaths of Sonja Larson, Christina Powell, Christa Hoyt, Tracey Paules, and Manuel Taboada. Rolling was sentenced to the death penalty. While he awaits his execution, his case is currently on appeal before the Florida Supreme Court. London, a free-lance writer, became engaged to Rolling in 1993. She covered Rolling's case for The National Enquirer and "A Current Affair." A five-part series on Rolling's story in the tabloid The Globe and two books from London, The Making of a Serial Killer and Knockin' on Joe: Voices from Death Row, soon followed. Florida officials have been trying to preventing London from collecting any Rolling-related profits since 1994. (London earned $15,000 from the Globe series and about $6,000 from the two books. The Making of a Serial Killer contained Rolling's confession; Voices from Death Row contained the writings of Rolling and another convict London used to date, Gerard John Schaefer.) An original contract stipulated that money unable to go to Rolling would then be transferred to London or Rolling's brother, Kevin. Since then, Kevin Rolling has waived any rights to money earned from works about his brother. In April 1997, the temporary injunction was placed on the money Rolling and London had earned on the books and articles. London had also posted web pages on America Online featuring essays and artwork by Rolling. However, in September 1997, AOL removed the pages from its system. An Issue of Unlawful Profit or The First Amendment? One of the central issues is whether in her works, London has acted as a journalist or an agent working on behalf of Rolling. London ended her engagement to Rolling in June 1996 and claims that her contractual agreement with him ended as well. Therefore, London claims, since Rolling has relinquished his right to the money earned from the books and articles, she is entitled to her profits. However, London claims that Florida's Civil Restitution Lien and Crime Victims' Remedy Act is unconstitutional because it restrains her right to Freedom of Speech. This case seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court because the Florida law closely resembles various "Son of Sam" laws which the Court has already ruled violate the First Amendment. The Ruling On Dec. 31, 1997, Judge Martha Ann Lott ruled that the State of Florida could seize the profits that Sondra London made on her story collaborations with Danny Rolling. In her decision, Judge Lott said that London's projects with Rolling were indeed subject to the state law that bars convicted felons like Rolling from profiting from stories and artwork related to their crimes. The ruling was the first to use a version of New York's "Son of Sam" law against an author collaborating with a convicted felon. The U.S. Supreme Court declared New York's "Son of Sam" law unconstitutional in 1991, but the Florida law has never been challenged in appellate court. Sondra London has indicated that she will appeal Judge Lott's ruling. The Aftermath By March, 1998, Sondra London still had not
LI GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is really getting dirty now. :( Sue GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that the WASHINGTON POST will report in Friday editions that President Clinton's legal defense team plans to introduce in court Friday sealed evidence about Paula Jones' past sex life! Clinton lawyer Bennett has notified the court that he will file "sensitive information of a sexual nature about Paula Jones" to counter her assertion that she was so traumatized by Clinton's alleged proposition that she suffers from an antipathy toward sex. Bennett once said in an interview: "One of the weapons I will not use ... is going into Paula Jones' sexual history." But in a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock Thursday, and obtained by the WASHINGTON POST, Bennett now explains: Jones "has placed her sexual conduct directly at issue with a brand new claim of alleged 'sexual aversion' injury... We have no choice but to respond in a vigorous but appropriate way. To do otherwise would allow scurrilous and false allegations to remain in the public record unrebutted. This would be greatly unfair to President Clinton." -- 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 School can't limit student web speech
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WESTLAKE, Ohio, March 29 (UPI) _ High school junior Sean O'Brien, suspended because he criticized a teacher on an Internet web site, has returned to his classes under a court ruling that school officials can't limit what he says after school hours. O'Brien said he was building a web page last month when it occurred to him that it was a good place to air his grievances against his band teacher, Raymond Walczuk. But when school officials saw the page _ ``raymondsucks.org'' _ they suspended O'Brien for 10 days and threatened to expel him. Senior U.S. District Judge John Manos in Cleveland Wednesday ordered school officials to reinstate the teenager and prohibited them from restricting what O'Brien says on the Internet from his home computer. An April 3 hearing is scheduled on O'Brien's claim the school district violated his First Amendment rights. The American Civil Liberties Union said the case could become the first nationally to explore how much, if any, control a school can exert over what students say on the Internet from their home computers. Christine Link, executive director of the ACLU's Ohio chapter, told UPI: ``The issues involved (in the case) are old traditional free speech issues. The Supreme Court has said you don't abandon your rights at the school house door. But in this case, the school authorities went farther and went into his home to suppress the kid's free speech rights.'' School officials contend they have a right to discipline O'Brien under a rule that says students may not ``demonstrate physical, written or verbal disrespect/threat'' against school employees. -- 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 Web Site
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The latest: Here is an article from the Associated Press's Tech Wire Section of their web site: I went to the web site that was made up by the student who posted his feeling about his teacher and this is what I found. Sue MARCH 19, 12:30 EST Court Backs Student's Web Site CLEVELAND (AP) -- A federal judge ordered a school district to reinstate a student suspended for using the Internet to gripe that a band teacher had a bad haircut and favored some students over others. Senior U.S. District Judge John M. Manos also ordered Westlake school district officials not to restrict what 16-year-old Sean O'Brien puts on a Web site set up through his home computer. O'Brien's Web site featured a photograph of his high school band teacher and described him as ``an overweight middle aged man who doesn't like to get haircuts.'' The student also wrote: ``He likes to involve himself in everything you do, demands that band be your No. 1 priority, and favors people.'' The temporary order Wednesday will be in effect until at least April 3, when a full hearing is scheduled on O'Brien's claim that the district violated his First Amendment rights. O'Brien, a junior, served eight days of his 10-day suspension. He returned today to Westlake High School today -- and band class. ``I'm going to sit there and do what I'm expected to do,'' he said. Chris Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said she was unaware of any previous court decision regarding a student's free-speech rights on the Internet. ``The school cannot control the communication off the school grounds,'' she said. The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring that the suburban Cleveland district violated O'Brien's First Amendment rights and asks for $550,000 in damages from various school administrators and the district. School officials contend they were entitled to discipline O'Brien under a school rule that requires students not to ``demonstrate physical, written, or verbal disrespect/threat'' against school employees. O'Brien closed down the Web site after his March 6 suspension, but the judge's order allows him to restore it. He said he did not know yet if he will reopen it. ``I'm not sure my dad will let me,'' he said. A Message From The Systems Administrator of Omni-NET Internet Services, the server formerly hosting this site: For some odd reason, a fairly large number of High Schools, Colleges, and Corporations feel that they have more power then our Bill of Rights. How foolish of them. The third article of the Bill of Rights, an integral part of a document which has existed for over two hundred years, clearly states that no law shall be made "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...", both of which apply to the information on the World Wide Web. Granted, there aren't many legal precedents dealing with the World Wide Web, and it is relatively uncharted territory for our legal system, but taken at face value anyone should have the right to put up any web site assuming that it does not contain information slandering a person or company. If the information contained on a web site is truthful, even if it is damaging, it is under the protection of the Bill of Rights. The World Wide Web was designed to be a medium of communication, communication of information, communication of opinions and communication of ideas. Support freedom of speech on the Web. Don't allow those in positions of power to stop you from using the Web to voice your opinions. If this happens, the Web will become just another advertisement. You must stand up for your right to use this medium. If you resist all threats toward your opinions, their sovereignty is guarenteed. Max -- 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
