Re: LI help on modem
Robert Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: thank you sue. bob Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bob: Len is the guy you need. :) He is helping me too and he knows what he is talking about. Sue good morning all i'm thinking of upgrading my modem,but not sure which way to go.i now have a 28,800 bob,wa -- 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 -- I dont suffer from stress.I'M a carrier.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Friday The 13th: Evil Or Excuse? It doesn't hurt to be prepared:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: That little trick only took me a year to learn. BG Bobby was showing me a lot more the other day. But I have already forgotten them. :( If you know how to use your word program I guess most of the tricks work the same way on the mail and things out on the web. I'm still saving my address book because it took me so long to finally get one. LOL Sue 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 -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I was thinking back about my experiences with this sort of thing the other day, and can remember the first time it happened to me. I was about 20 or so and one of the engineers at the hospital came on to me. I had heard stories about him being married and coming on to women at the hospital, but didn't really pay any attention. Anyway one night when I was working the grave yard shift the phone rang and it was him asking if I wanted to go out after work for a drink and a few other things. :( I didn't really know what to say or do. After hee-hawing around for a few minutes I managed to say something like my dad was picking me up after work or something like that. The next day I told my supervisor, and she did something about it, never knew what, but this guy was put on notice to leave the women alone. He avoided me after that. Not that it was that hard, as I was avoiding him too. And there were never any more rumors about him. I had a supervisor do the same thing a few years later. But I just said no thanks and after that there were no further problems. We still got along fine, and never really had any problems. Can't really say that I have had that many problems with it. Usually a simple no was enough to end the problem, permanently. Did have one guy who offered me a part time job let it be known that in order to get the job, he expected a little entertainment. Unfortunately for him, I didn't need the money that bad, and I let him know that his wife would love to know what the job he offered entailed. Don't know what ever happened to him, but needless to say I didn't go to work for him. He did call the office one day for an appointment, but never showed up when he found out I worked there. Hope he wasn't too sick. LOL Sue 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 -- 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 Williams: Verdict
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a case a prosecutor said would "give nightmares to Stephen King," a woman was convicted Friday of killing two children and their pregnant mother, then cutting the woman's full-term baby from her womb. The boy ripped from the womb survived and is now 2. A jury deliberated for about two hours before finding Jacqueline Annette Williams, 31, guilty on all counts. She could get the death penalty. Members of the victims' family cried as the verdict was announced. Williams looked away from jurors, and was the only person in the courtroom to remain seated as they walked out. Williams was convicted in the November 1995 deaths of 28-year-old Debra Evans, her 10-year-old daughter Samantha, and her 7-year-old son Joshua. -- 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 Sleep Apnea
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Steven is into that sleeping for a 1/2 hour up for an hour all night long. Bobby came down the other morning to go to work and he looked like hell. I asked him if he got any sleep and of course he grumbled something like how can anyone sleep anymore. Then he proceeded to say that he wished babies were like computers that you could turn them off, and then back on when you wanted to play with them. LOL I don't think Steven will be seeing a sister or brother in the near future. LOL But one thing I do have to say, at least Yoko doesn't have the full responsibility of being up all night with the baby. I wish I could have said that when mine were that little. I guess times have changed some. The guys are taking more responsibility now in raising the kids. And I think that is wonderful, for both the kids and the dads. BTW both Bobby and Yoko have these deep, dark circles under their eyes. And Steven is all bushy tailed and ready to go. BEG Sue 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 -- 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 Conjoined Twins
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: The babies went home yesterday. They aren't even going to consider seperating them for at least six months. Sue Hi Sue Thanks for the article. It is really a thought provoking article, isn't it. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI For Steve and Vi
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I personally think it is rather rude that we can't even say hello to them. LOL There must be something to some of this, otherwise why would they even make a law. And if there is such a thing why would the government be afraid of anyone saying or having anything to do with them? Strange, IMO Sue Hi Sue I'll bet that is a "just in case" law : ) Seriously, the government has been studying this phenomenon and if they wrote a law, I wonder. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: 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 -- 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 -- 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 NG: Yet another Case update
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I swear this case will never go to trial Ng will die of old age first, in case you don't remember this is the SK who has done everything he can to keep from going to trial. In yet another twist in the legal saga surrounding accused serial killer Charles Ng, attorneys representing the former Marine go to court today to try to prove themselves wrong. The latest chapter in the case--expected to be one of the longest and costliest in California history--centers on whether Ng is mentally competent to stand trial for a dozen killings committed in 1984 and 1985 in Calaveras County. Ng's court-appointed attorneys acknowledge their position is nothing less than "schizophrenic" in nature. Deputy public defenders William Kelley and James Merwin will be arguing that Ng is not competent to stand trial. The attorneys also want access to sealed court records to be used in an upcoming hearing on Ng's mental state. The same attorneys are then prepared to use this argument against their own motion: Their client objects to being ruled mentally incompetent and the request to unseal court records would violate attorney-client confidentiality. "Counsel regret the schizophrenic nature of this pair of pleadings, but offer them anyway because they feel they must in order to adequately represent defendant's mutually inconsistent--but equally important--interests," Kelley stated in a pair of motions filed recently in Orange County Superior Court. The attorneys complain that they find themselves in this "dilemma" because of Judge John J. Ryan's refusal to appoint Ng's attorney of choice to represent him. The attorneys said they may be faced with testifying against their own client during the competency hearing--a move that they consider to pose a serious conflict of interest. Ng claims to have a mental illness that prevents him from putting his trust and confidence in his current attorneys. He claims his problems with his current and former defense attorneys are "driven by their incompetence and not his mental disorder," according to legal documents. * * * Ng's attorneys contend that their client has an "irrational obsession" with having his original defense attorney, San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Michael Burt, reappointed to the case. "This obsession has prevented defendant from cooperating with his appointed counsel," Kelley states in court records. ". . . Facing trial for his life, all defendant can think about is his desire to be reunited with Mr. Burt." Ng has fought for years to have Burt appointed to the case. And at one point, he demanded to represent himself. This has led to numerous delays in a case that began shortly after Ng's 1985 arrest in Canada. He fought extradition for six years until Canada's Supreme Court sent him back to California. Ryan last fall appointed Burt to join Kelley and Merwin in defending Ng, but Burt has said he considers such a teaming an "unworkable situation." Kelley has said that a competency trial would not be needed if he were replaced by Burt. But Ryan has said that such a hearing must take place regardless of who represents Ng at his criminal trial. According to defense legal briefs, Ng believes the competency trial that is being sought by his current attorneys is proof that they are "deliberately refusing to provide him legally adequate assistance." Legal experts said Thursday that Ng's attorneys appear to have had little choice but to proceed in this manner. "They are doing what they should do," said Marguerite Downing, chair of the criminal law section executive committee of the State Bar of California. "People don't realize we are representing our client and sometimes they want things that aren't in their best interests," said Downing, a deputy public defender in Los Angeles County. Robert Pugsley, professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles said that "while on the surface [the dueling motions] are obviously totally inconsistent, each one represents a position that Mr. Ng quite recently voiced to the court." The criminal proceedings in the case were suspended last month by Ryan so that the trial to determine Ng's competency could be held first. The case was moved to Orange County in 1994 because of widespread publicity in Calaveras County, where most of the victims lived. -- 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
Re: LI NG: Yet another Case update
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: This SOB has been reading the Unabomber stories in the paper, Kathy. That is exactly what he is trying to pull, IMO. Sue I swear this case will never go to trial Ng will die of old age first, in case you don't remember this is the SK who has done everything he can to keep from going to trial. -- 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 wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue Hi Sue, That one is easy to figure out. They think the money they will get for their story is well worth the embarrassment they might feel when details of their personal life is revealed. I see where Paula Jones now has some doctor saying that he examined her and she suffers from sexual dysfunction because of her traumatic encounter with Clinton. So now she opens up her entire sexual history from the time she had her "encounter" with Clinton. Perhaps instead of claiming she cannot engage in sexual relations any more she should have claimed she was unable to avoid it. :) 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] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue And how would you explain pictures taken of you by a boyfriend, Sue? I thought that was her former husband but I suppose it matters little today. I fail to see why you would look down your nose at Paula Jones for that. Geez this woman has had to suffer some terrible insults for nothing. She raised money early on by doing an advertisement for Guess Jeans. That was the outfit that specialized in women involved in scandal like Paula Rice, Gary Hart's playmate. One could make something of that, I suppose, but pictures sold by a boyfriend? 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. But I still wonder how she is going to explain this. And you know she is going to have to. So who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? I do know that Susan Carpenter McMillian was interviewed in the story that went along with the pictures. As to how I would explain the pictures. Well at my murder trial it would be justifiable homicide. Donna Rice is another story altogether. There was a whole slew of women around that time. None of them brought charges against anyone. I'm not condemning nor am I condoning any of them. It was a legitimate question, IMO. Sue And how would you explain pictures taken of you by a boyfriend, Sue? I thought that was her former husband but I suppose it matters little today. I fail to see why you would look down your nose at Paula Jones for that. Geez this woman has had to suffer some terrible insults for nothing. She raised money early on by doing an advertisement for Guess Jeans. That was the outfit that specialized in women involved in scandal like Paula Rice, Gary Hart's playmate. One could make something of that, I suppose, but pictures sold by a boyfriend? Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. A former husband (boyfriend?) sold the pictures. But I still wonder how she is going to explain this. Why should she have to? The pictures weren't made for the delight of the readers of Penthouse. Is this something that would even shock Pat Robertson? The boyfriend should be sitting in court alongside Our Beloved President. And you know she is going to have to. So who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? Former husband (boyfriend?). I will try to find out which if you insist. Paula Jones got nothing. I do know that Susan Carpenter McMillian was interviewed in the story that went along with the pictures. As to how I would explain the pictures. Well at my murder trial it would be justifiable homicide. I understand. :-} Donna Rice is another story altogether. There was a whole slew of women around that time. None of them brought charges against anyone. I'm not condemning nor am I condoning any of them. It was a legitimate question, IMO. Sue I'll be damned if I can see how pictures sold by a former beaux could cause anyone to look down on Paula Jones. But then she is being blamed for complaining about Our Beloved President waving his dick in her face. People have a strange sense of morality these days. 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 Another Woman
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I think you have really hit on one important thing that many forget when we hear each person's story of what occurred. Usually, it is not an either/or thing, but the truth lies somewhere in-between. I guess what I mean here is that it is not either she is telling the whole truth or he is telling the whole truth. In reality, we act and believe our perceptions of the situation, not necessarily the reality of the whole situation. How's that for a muddy explanation?? But what has me baffled is the lack of interest by the younger generation in what is occurring with this mess. Some of them do not even know what is happening and even if they are aware of the "mess" have no concern about how it affects the political process, our international relations, etc. I know I can't generalize to the majority of young people in our society from my experiences with the younger generation at this school, but I see hundreds everyday, not just one or two. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Jackie, I agree completely. The sad part of this entire fiasco is that there is probably an element of truth in EVERY person's statements and comments about what really happened. The problem comes when the truth becomes exaggerated with details that probably did not happen. Then everyone who is observing this can, rightfully, cast doubts about EVERYTHING that a person says. As usual, the truth probably exists somewhere in between. But I hope that not many people adopt the stance that women mus always stick up for other women, or men for other men, or Republicans for other Republicans, Dems for Dems, etc. etc. regardless of what the evidence and the facts are. Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:19:01 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 _ 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
Re: LI Re: Disparity in Infant Mortality Rates
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill The neat thing though is that I don't pay anything for this trip. The school is paying for everything from the way it sounds. And the seminar is designed for profs in the social sciences so it shouldn't be too technical. But, I hadn't thought of incuding my ISP in occupational costs--do you think the IRS would buy it? vbg. I am trying to talk the dean into sending one of my secretaries along with me to take care of the detail stuff, but so far he isn't buying it : (. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, LOL...you could write off the cost of you ISP as an occupational cost. :) Sounds like you saw some of the best of St. Louis when you were there. Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:28:27 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 _ 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
Re: LI Freemen: Update
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy Maybe they were smart and never wrote a check for less than a thousand. Cut down a little on overdraft fees. jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heck I was wondering about the returned check fees! I can imagine that was quite a bill in itself Jackie Fellows wrote: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy Jeez, my bank would have me in jail if I wrote $100 over my 'real' account. What is the name of their bank? g jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Montana Freemen wrote 3,432 bogus checks totaling $15.5 billion against a nonexistent bank account, an Internal Revenue Service investigator said Thursday. The Freeman and their followers managed to swindle $1.8 million from government agencies and private businesses prior to an 81-day standoff with the FBI that ended in June 1996, according to IRS Special Agent Loretta Rodriguez. Rodriguez, testifying at the trial of six Freemen, said the IRS received 413 of the bogus checks in a tax scheme that cost her agency $29,000. Only two of the six Freemen on trial, Elwin Ward, 57, of Salt Lake City, and Edwin Clark, 47, of Brusett, Montana, are implicated in the bogus check operation. The others are accused of being accessories by aiding Freemen leaders in the stronghold they called "Justus Township" to avoid arrest. -- 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 -- 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 GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy Question: After listening to the commentators last night from both sides of the fence, didn't Paula's lawyers open a can of worms by filing the new charge of sexual dysfunction?? That makes her sexual life fair game, doesn't it? I don't say it is right, merely that she opened the door. I am not a Clintonite; I find him too slippery in a lot of ways, but I am becoming truly baffled by this whole thing. It seems that it is alright for the one side to dig into everything to establish a pattern and establish a motive for the behavior, the lying by one party, etc; yet, on the other hand, it is not alright for the other side to dig into everything to establish a pattern, motive for behavior, lying, etc. We can bring in the past sexual behavior of the accused in this case (even if the behavior is different in many aspects), but not the past sexual behavior of the accuser. We can use a lie he told about good ole' maryjane to establish a pattern of lying, but we can't use the accuser's past lies to establish a pattern of lying. We can immediately say that the truth is what the accuser says it is; but all we want from the accused is the *truth, the whole truth* as it is portrayed by the accuser, no other version will suffice. Thank goodness we all believe so strongly in innocent until *proven* guilty, or do we?? As one commentator remarked just because we don't like the accused and just because he is President, isn't he entitled to the same avenues open to the accuser and to the same (if not more so) benefit of the doubt we give the accused? jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You mean to tell me they're just NOW taking the gloves off? Hell I never realized they had them on. I mean look how many lives they have destroyed, lets be honest they are digging up dirt for one reason only, and that is to take away the attention from the allegations that are being charged, their thinking is if we can come up with something juicier than what the person is alleging then we will take the spotlight off of Bill and put it on so and so. What people don't seem to care about is the one thing the WH does is no matter who it is they will put out anything they can to destroy that person. I bet if Mother Teresa was alive and said something they would put out some dirt on her also, alleging she was a leader of this weird cult or something. Truth doesn't matter in this case anymore only who is willing to get dirtier than the other. Has it dawned on anyone that no matter how many people you have had sex with doesn't mean that you can't be sexually harassed? The WH thinking sounds like the old belief that a hooker couldn't be raped. Well they can be and people are convicted for it. Who Paula has slept with does not matter in this case. Who Bill slept with does not matter, what does matter is did he do as she alleges? Sue Hartigan wrote: 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 -- 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 GOP Women Want Dems Outrage Outloud
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy But accessible to some--not really a private area with doors to close. And, I believe, it is inconsistent with her statement then isn't it? Didn't she say the private study?? Of course with all the different stories who knows who said where it is alleged to have happened.Sounds like a small detail, I know--but wasn't a small detail such as what Paula wore (culottes or skirt) one of the things that made many wonder if she told the truth? jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: well if you read the depo clinton gave, the hallway connects the oval office with a private office and kitchen. It's a back hallway not accesable to anyone who wants access. Jackie Fellows wrote: 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 -- 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 Background Required
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Danny Ferguson is the trooper and he is a target of the lawsuit for lying about the details. His story that he worked for Clinton in gathering phone numbers and procuring women has been substantiated. The story about Paula Jones is precisely what initiated the lawsuit. He was the source of the article in "The American Spectator." Not exactly a cogent argument, Mac. Gee, I thought it was the other two troopers that were the source of the story.You know...the one's being bankrolled by the GOPAC committee headed by Clinton's arch enemy in Little Rock. I wonder why The American Spectator is not named in the lawsuit or the author of the article. Jones was a government employee and Clinton was her boss. His denials all around have been farcical. Maybe to you but not to others. Have it as you will. All the witnesses for Jones, all the witness for the President are lying. How the hell does that make sense? If it makes sense to you then there is little more to say. I never said that. It is proven by his lies and his vicious attacks on the women and reporters. Attacks on what women? What reporters? I printed excerpts from a long article discussing the "free-speech" hero, Sidney Blumenthal, in particular who made claims various prosecutors and reporters were homosexuals or involved in illicit relationships. The incredible attack machinery operating out of the White House has shown itself once again against Willey. It is really no secret. People just hide their eyes. If you don't have the article, if you want it, Mac, I will be glad to look it up and email it to you. Let me get this straight...it's ok for the Right Wing crowd to sling mud but nota supporter of the President! I believe there may be a damn good reason for the WH to challange Ms. Willey. The attacks themselves by a highly sophisticated publicly-funded hit operation should shock people. He is not allowed the same rights as any other American. Not every other American has private investigators digging up dirt on reporters and blackmailing them over access to the White House. Not every American has been able to attack the personal lives of prosecutors. I didn't know there was such a right. If they have the funds they can. What about the Republican funded smear campaign against him? Tsk, tsk. The imaginary crap from Falwell has fallen flat for obvious reasons. If you want to simply call these wingnuts and religious fanatics Republicans, I suppose. But they simply don't have the platform of the President of the United States. Since James Carville toured the country calling Paula Jones trailer-park trash, people are often shocked to learn she never lived in a trailer park. How many people are intiamately familiar with Falwell's charges? I have only the vaguest concept of what they are. It goes far beyond Falwell. Now would you like to discuss which smear campaign you are talking about? Jerry Brown's original charges about a certain land development in Arkansas? Is Jerry Brown a Republican? I don't belive Clinton has been found to be guilty of anything relating toWhitewater. I belive Jerry Brown has created his own party. The intimidation and evasion has been pervasive and wide-ranging. Maybe so but it's working and so far there is no proof that he has done anything illegal. Yes there is. The evidence is overwhelming. The denials are equivalent to the denials by OJ's fans. Overwhelming!! Where is it? I haven't seen it yet. Alot of allegations but nothing hasbeen turned in by Ken Starr or anyone else. Elizabeth Ward, a woman who told a friend about an encounter according to the friend, is busily occupied dodging a subpoena in Europe. Got any idea why? Maybe she doesn't really have anything to say. Also it sounds alot like hearsay. It is hearsay. I didn't know we were in court. Everything I am saying is hearsay. I agree. If Ken Starr can find a friend of Monica's in Japan I'm sure he could track her down if her testimony was relevant. Uh, Mac, we were talking about Paula Jones' lawsuit. Paula Jones has been trying to serve a subpoena on the former Miss America for many months. It's all the same Terry. The same witnessess that are being deposed forthe Jones suit are being brought in front of the grand jury. From the very beginning Clinton has shown himself to be a liar. He told the nation in a tear-jerking appearance on "60 Minutes" with Hillary that he had done wrong but he never had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. It was a performance that put to shame Nixon's wonderful "Checkers" speech or the tearful confession of Jimmy Swaggart. Later Flowers was the "woman I never slept with." Then got reelected! So? Nixon had a tremendous landslide. Better than Clinton's as I recall.
Re: LI Background Required
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hogwash. They are the most effective means known of showing lies. Police agencies and security agencies have great faith in them. Why would they do that? Best, Terry Hi Terry No they are not the most effective means of showing lies. If they were, they would be permissible in court. Any antisocial can pass a lie detector, even one who is not a criminal. Pathological liars can pass a lie detector; people whose physical responses do not follow a normal pattern can pass a test; the person giving the test can mess up the findings; the phrasing of the questions can alter the findings. One other thing I disagree with--Starr just calls everyone to testify at the grand jury--seems he has a bigger stick in this case to initimidate in some respects. So both sides are engaging in some 'dirty pool', not just the wh. jackief "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI eek!
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kaye Leave it to you!! LOL jackief Kaye wrote: Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.imageserve.com/apc/gifs/wag.gif 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 Freemen: Update
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Only $18 a check?? Ours is $20 and you better think twice before doing it or you won't have an account for very long. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Hi Kathy: Let's see at 18 dollars a check that adds up to 61,776.00 in bad check charges if they only went through once. GeezeI wonder if the bank closed their account. :) Sue The Montana Freemen wrote 3,432 bogus checks totaling $15.5 billion against a nonexistent bank account, an Internal Revenue Service investigator said Thursday. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Computer Learning was Re: LI Friday The 13th: Evil Or Excuse?
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Oh good, there is hope for me : ) Only problem is that they keep changing word programs on me everytime I finally learn one. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: That little trick only took me a year to learn. BG Bobby was showing me a lot more the other day. But I have already forgotten them. :( If you know how to use your word program I guess most of the tricks work the same way on the mail and things out on the web. I'm still saving my address book because it took me so long to finally get one. LOL Sue 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 -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI eek!
Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 07:13 AM 3/21/98 -0600, Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leave it to you!! LOL I may not post a lot but I sure don't say much... LOL! k Kaye wrote: Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.imageserve.com/apc/gifs/wag.gif 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 You know it may be the different times we grew up in that makes the reaction to this sort of behavior so different. I guess when I went to work, dealing with this in a direct manner was just part of the territory. You either dealth with it yourself or it would go on; simple as that. I must say though, you were nicer about it than I was. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I was thinking back about my experiences with this sort of thing the other day, and can remember the first time it happened to me. I was about 20 or so and one of the engineers at the hospital came on to me. I had heard stories about him being married and coming on to women at the hospital, but didn't really pay any attention. Anyway one night when I was working the grave yard shift the phone rang and it was him asking if I wanted to go out after work for a drink and a few other things. :( I didn't really know what to say or do. After hee-hawing around for a few minutes I managed to say something like my dad was picking me up after work or something like that. The next day I told my supervisor, and she did something about it, never knew what, but this guy was put on notice to leave the women alone. He avoided me after that. Not that it was that hard, as I was avoiding him too. And there were never any more rumors about him. I had a supervisor do the same thing a few years later. But I just said no thanks and after that there were no further problems. We still got along fine, and never really had any problems. Can't really say that I have had that many problems with it. Usually a simple no was enough to end the problem, permanently. Did have one guy who offered me a part time job let it be known that in order to get the job, he expected a little entertainment. Unfortunately for him, I didn't need the money that bad, and I let him know that his wife would love to know what the job he offered entailed. Don't know what ever happened to him, but needless to say I didn't go to work for him. He did call the office one day for an appointment, but never showed up when he found out I worked there. Hope he wasn't too sick. LOL Sue 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 -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Was this spread (no pun intended) before or after the traumatic event in the hotel room that caused her to suffer sexual aversion?? I am assuming after--she probably wouldn't be noticed by Playbody until she was a celebrity of some sort As long as everyone is jumping on this bandwagon, I wonder if Ed can sue?? After I found out that I was overlooked (remember you are my expert witness Sue) my trauma has been so great that I have developed an aversion to sex and Ed is now suffering from deep emotional trauma from the loss LOL. We could really rake in the dollars, don't you think : ) jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue Hi Sue, That one is easy to figure out. They think the money they will get for their story is well worth the embarrassment they might feel when details of their personal life is revealed. I see where Paula Jones now has some doctor saying that he examined her and she suffers from sexual dysfunction because of her traumatic encounter with Clinton. So now she opens up her entire sexual history from the time she had her "encounter" with Clinton. Perhaps instead of claiming she cannot engage in sexual relations any more she should have claimed she was unable to avoid it. :) 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 -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse. Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in there having sex with her boyfriend. Sue And how would you explain pictures taken of you by a boyfriend, Sue? I thought that was her former husband but I suppose it matters little today. I fail to see why you would look down your nose at Paula Jones for that. Geez this woman has had to suffer some terrible insults for nothing. She raised money early on by doing an advertisement for Guess Jeans. That was the outfit that specialized in women involved in scandal like Paula Rice, Gary Hart's playmate. One could make something of that, I suppose, but pictures sold by a boyfriend? Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? jackief Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Paula Jones' Penthouse Pictures
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This may not be from the most reliable sources. It is third-hand hearsay from Susan Carpenter McMillan, a rightwing media flack, through a gossip columnist interviewing such hack to your faithful quoter: -- McMillan is still furious about the silence of liberal feminists. "Where was Pat Ireland when some scum-bucket ex-boyfriend sold topless pictures of Paula to Penthouse magazine? Where was the outrage? They were out there with tape on their mouths." -- I was really surprised that the message hadn't long ago sunk in that Paula Jones has been smeared and dirtied by the most potent PR attack machine ever, betrayed and sold out by friends and family for great paydays. I have wondered if Jones has nerve endings. She has gone through attacks that have driven others to suicide and she had the option of ending it unlike people such as OJ or Marv Albert. Jones is embarrassed by seeing the nude pictures her boyfriend sells to Penthouse spread out for all the world and then she is condemned as if she sold the pictures herself. Seems few believe in any sort of fair play for Clinton's victims? To pass along a bit of totally unsubstantiated gossip (an anonymous caller to C-SPAN), revenues to NOW took a big hit with the recent round of sex stories regarding Our Beloved President. Could explain Patricia Ireland's sudden discovery of a conscience - but only regarding a woman with a decent wardrobe and accent. 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 Background Required
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, I deleted much. We can go on arguing over whether a propaganda machine blackmailing reporters, making libelous charges in secret against prosecutors and anyone regarded as hostile, controlling access to the White House to stifle hostile stories about presidential criminality is all just normal operations and we should all be glad to be paying for it. I politeley demur. moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Danny Ferguson is the trooper and he is a target of the lawsuit for lying about the details. His story that he worked for Clinton in gathering phone numbers and procuring women has been substantiated. The story about Paula Jones is precisely what initiated the lawsuit. He was the source of the article in "The American Spectator." Not exactly a cogent argument, Mac. Gee, I thought it was the other two troopers that were the source of the story.You know...the one's being bankrolled by the GOPAC committee headed by Clinton's arch enemy in Little Rock. Danny Ferguson was the source of David Brock's description of Paula Jones. When you quote Danny Ferguson, you quote David Brock's hatchet job. I wonder why The American Spectator is not named in the lawsuit or the author of the article. Because they have attributed their source and are essentially immune in the instance. Jones was a government employee and Clinton was her boss. His denials all around have been farcical. Maybe to you but not to others. Have it as you will. All the witnesses for Jones, all the witness for the President are lying. How the hell does that make sense? If it makes sense to you then there is little more to say. I never said that. Oh? Then what are you saying? Clinton has denied everything. There was no meeting. There was no sex. Or at least he can't remember. I maintain that Jones was approached and propositioned. That Clinton, with the phenomenol memory of most successful politicians, is unlikely to have forgotten Jones. That Jones' version of events is shown by the preponderance of witnesses to the events, even some that are hostile, and by Clinton's unwillingness to address the issue instead using false and contemptible attacks on his accuser. What is it that you said? Let me get this straight...it's ok for the Right Wing crowd to sling mud but nota supporter of the President! It is not alright for "the rightwing crowd" to pass around salacious information which has no particular basis in truth and maybe deliberately false any more than it is for the President to do so. It is particularly nauseating when the President indulges in such sleazy operations because he is supposed to at least have a modicum of respectability. I believe there may be a damn good reason for the WH to challange Ms. Willey. Let's see what we know about Ms. Willey. She was in desperate straits. She was a longtime supporter of the the President and Democratic volunteer. She asked for a fulltime job but never got one - she did get shorter term jobs. Her financial condition remains quite desperate. Clinton at first couldn't remember meeting her (that ol' memory problem again and then remembered with crystal clear accuracy). Kathleen Willey resisted a subpoena from Paula Jones for months and when the efforts collapsed told her story after being deposed. Now there is fantastic charge that Willey had some sort of diabolical scheme to use this whole affair to make money off the story. Her partisanship has been overruled completely by greed. I think it is more believable that the man in the White House, who has acknowledged problems with sex and has demonstrated his willingness and ability to lie convincingly in the Gennifer Flowers case, received Kathleen Willey in a time of desperation and sexually assaulted her as she said, as has happened to others. Not every other American has private investigators digging up dirt on reporters and blackmailing them over access to the White House. Not every American has been able to attack the personal lives of prosecutors. I didn't know there was such a right. If they have the funds they can. Blackmail is illegal. I don't dispute people get away with it. I don't belive Clinton has been found to be guilty of anything relating toWhitewater. Al Capone was never convicted of any mob activities. Many people nevertheless believe the evidence. I belive Jerry Brown has created his own party. Jerry Brown was the Democratic governor of California, he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President when he brought up Whitewater. He comes from a Democratic family and has been a Democrat all his life. If he has started a new party it is news to me. (A lot of things are.) Are you now claiming Jerry Brown too is a member of the rightwing conspiracy? I believe there may have been an encounter but it was consensual. And your evidence is? All is fair in love and war. It's politics and it tends to get real ugly down
Re: LI Background Required
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about polygraphs] No they are not the most effective means of showing lies. If they were, they would be permissible in court. Courts are places of drama, of theater. They are not places of truth and justice. Only little children believe that. Any antisocial can pass a lie detector... This is one of many myths that are totally false. I have extracted from an amicus curiae brief for arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the use of polygraphs. It was allowed in this a case - a court martial. The full brief, which is very lengthy, is located at: http://truth.idbsu.edu/amicus/brief.html SUMMARY OF THE SCIENTIFIC DATA ON THE VALIDITY OF THE COMPARISON QUESTION TESTS The scientific data concerning the validity of the polygraph can be summarized as follows: High quality scientific research from the laboratory and the field converge on the conclusion that the CQT is a highly accurate discriminator of truth tellers and deceivers. The research results converge on an accuracy estimate that exceeds 90 percent. Moreover, original examiners, who are most likely to offer testimony, produce even higher estimates of accuracy. There may be a tendency for the CQT to produce more false positive than false negative errors, but this trend in the current literature is not particularly strong. (17) Moreover, no tendency toward false positive errors is seen in the decisions of the original examiners. The scientific validity of a properly administered polygraph examination in a real life case compares favorably with such other forms of scientific evidence as x-ray films, electrocardiograms, fiber analysis, ballistics comparison tests, blood analysis, and is far more reliable than other forms of expert testimony (e.g., psychiatric and psychological opinions as to sanity, snicker diminished capacity, dangerousness and many of the post traumatic stress/recovered memory syndromes). (18) ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT OF SOME CONTROVERSY, POLYGRAPH TESTS ARE ACCEPTED AS VALID SCIENCE WITHIN THE RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGISTS. The notion that the polygraph is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community as a valid test is supported by several sources of evidence. There have been two surveys of the Society for Psychophysiological Research that have directly attempted to address the general acceptance issue. (19) The Society for Psychophysiological Research is a professional society of scientists (Ph.D. and M.D.) who study how the mind and body interact. Thus, the Society for Psychophysiological Research would seem to be the appropriate scientific community for assessing general acceptance. An initial survey was undertaken by the Gallup Organization in 1982. That survey was replicated and extended in 1994 in Susan Amato's Master's Thesis at the University of North Dakota. [etc.] [Those who claim lack of scientific acceptability it seems do not consult the scientists who would have some knowledge of the subject. The prejudice against polygraphs is superstitious. They are damned for being both unreliable and too reliable. That they are a dangerous tool that should be controlled should go without saying but only because of their validity.] SCIENCE HAS ALSO EXAMINED MANY OF THE TRADITIONAL CRITICISMS OF POLYGRAPH TESTING AND HAS PROVIDED DATA TO ADDRESS THEM Countermeasures Countermeasures are anything that a subject might do in order to distort or defeat a psychophysiological credibility assessment test. Detailed reviews of the scientific literature on countermeasures are available in a number of locations. (24) This research leads to several conclusions. First, there is no credible scientific evidence that drugs or other countermeasures designed to affect the general state of the subject are effective against the CQT. (25) However, studies have indicated that training in specific point countermeasures designed to increase responding to comparison questions is effective in producing a substantial number of false negative outcomes. (26) Nevertheless, it is also important to note that training in the countermeasures appears critical to their effectiveness. Subjects who spontaneously attempt countermeasures or are only given the information are unable to achieve effects, (27) and the required training is hopefully difficult to obtain. (28) Honts and Perry note that while there are no easy answers to the problem of countermeasures, it appears that computerized analysis of the physiological records substantially reduces the false negative rate attributable to countermeasure use. (29) Psychopathy and Other Psychological Conditions The popular notion that a "pathological," "psychopathic," or "criminally hardened" liar cannot be tested successfully with the polygraph has no basis in scientific fact. "Psychopathic" or "criminally hardened" liars, including those clinically diagnosed with
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? I would say she has a full plate. Wouldn't you, Jackie? 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 Sexual History/Herstory
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-20 22:06:41 EST, you write: But aversion to sex and partaking of it wouldn't seem to be the same thing. Maybe she did a lot more, trying to overcome the problem? :-} Truly heroic! Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jim McDougal
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 00:27:16 EST, you write: I had a supervisor do the same thing a few years later. But I just said no thanks and after that there were no further problems. We still got along fine, and never really had any problems. Can't really say that I have had that many problems with it. Usually a simple no was enough to end the problem, permanently. Did have one guy who offered me a part time job let it be known that in order to get the job, he expected a little entertainment. (I've snipped bits above and below the quoted piece) I once had a boss (years ago when I was cute, blonde and young) who decided, after he hired me, that some extra-curricular activity went with the job. I just said no -- sort of in the no, thanks mode but a bit more definite than that. He grumbled a bit but after a few tries he stopped. I learned later that he had told his colleagues that I was the first secretary he ever had who said no to him, and that he rather liked me for it. At any rate, he bought the champagne for my wedding breakfast. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Williams: Verdict
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 00:29:10 EST, you write: In a case a prosecutor said would "give nightmares to Stephen King," a woman was convicted Friday of killing two children and their pregnant mother, then cutting the woman's full-term baby from her womb. The boy ripped from the womb survived and is now 2. A jury deliberated for about two hours before finding Jacqueline Annette Williams, 31, guilty on all counts. She could get the death penalty. And as might have been predicted, her defense is that she was a victim of some kind of childhood abuse. I'd like to see all child abusers stopped in their tracks, but I also get a bit tired of the constant use of that as an excuse for every sort of stuff. I didn't exactly have an abuse-free childhood, and I knew many of my classmates whose home life was far worse than mine. All seem to have managed to put that behind them and build successful lives. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 07:34:36 EST, you write: Thank goodness we all believe so strongly in innocent until *proven* guilty, or do we?? As one commentator remarked just because we don't like the accused and just because he is President, isn't he entitled to the same avenues open to the accuser and to the same (if not more so) benefit of the doubt we give the accused? jackief Jackief, I was in central Illinois when WC was first elected, and you could cut the Clinton-hate with a knife. They hated him before they knew anything about him other than that he was young and didn't do military service. In fact, the most usual complaint was that he was too young to have been in World War II . Some of those folks were ready to fly to DC and commit murder before they guy was even inaugurated. You can't change that kind of thing -- the rock-hard conservatism is just as impervious to reasonableness, IMO, as is the far left. Fringes just are that way. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Background Required
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 10:04:07 EST, you write: Any antisocial can pass a lie detector, even one who is not a criminal. Pathological liars can pass a lie detector; And anyone, pathological liar, antisocial personality, or just plain John/Jane Doe, can be taught to pass a lie detector test on a specific question. I learned that trick years ago -- it was a kind of fun thing we played with in grad school. Don't know how well I'd do in a real situtation, but it sure worked then, not just for me but for everyone who tried it. Doc 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
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 10:04:28 EST, you write: Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackief, I was in central Illinois when WC was first elected, and you could cut the Clinton-hate with a knife. They hated him before they knew anything about him other than that he was young and didn't do military service. In fact, the most usual complaint was that he was too young to have been in World War II . Some of those folks were ready to fly to DC and commit murder before they guy was even inaugurated. You can't change that kind of thing -- the rock-hard conservatism is just as impervious to reasonableness, IMO, as is the far left. Fringes just are that way. Doc One of the fringies is Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who was elected governor and then Senator after losing a leg in Vietnam and gaining Congressional Medal of Honor and then making himself a millionaire building a business. He was a Democrat in a state that was then known as the most Republican state in the nation. Like many others I thought Kerrey was the ideal candidate. Little did I know he was a fringie. Kerrey had no chance because as Paul Tsongas, another fringie, noted Clinton is a "pander bear." He is the all-purpose man who cofounded the DLC to make the Democrats into Republicans. Clinton would die before speaking up for the poor like all previous Democratic presidents, who apparently were also fringies. I voted for every Democratic presidential nominee since Eisenhower except Clinton and Carter because I never vote for Republicans or Republican look-alikes for president. I am a fringie too. 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 A Word From the Leftwing of The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry :) The best way anyone can handle this type of smear campaign is to come back with the comment of "so what" to anyone who tries this. Perhaps those who try to destroy people with this type of gossip will then see they are pretty childish and immature to use this type of mud slinging, and someone's sexual preference doesn't matter one bit to most people. What does matter is how well they do their job. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OF CLOSETS AND CLINTON by Doug Ireland [Excerpts from an article in "The Nation." Doug Ireland was onetime media critic for the "Village Voice."] -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? Doc People will be glad to know there are none of me. It is not a matter of morality but of common decency. Wonder no longer, Doc. Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting a boyfriend take nude pictures of her. 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 Cameras in Courtroom?
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Linda :) I didn't see the show that Sue was talking about but I have thought a bit on my feelings towards camera's in the courtroom. I am mainly for it, due to the fact it gives a lot of people the chance to see our justice system at work, something most people never get to see. The upside if a trial is going to be televised I would think that lawyers on both sides make sure they have their case completely prepared and all the I's dotted and T's crossed. I do think the camera's does have some affect on how the attorney's try their case, it would be foolish to think otherwise IMHO. Is that good or bad? I don't know the jury is still out on that. We saw some of the bad in the OJ trial, yet in other trials I have watched I have seen how watching the case had helped me understand the juries decision. The downside is sometimes I see the attorneys acting for the camera and they forget their focus should be to impress the jury not the audience with their case. And some attorneys are very nervous, but usually they settle down after a day or so and forget about the camera. The question then comes to the defendant is this fair to them? Shouldn't they have a say in this? I would think if they're innocent it would help them, OTOH if they are guilty and so judged it would make it harder for them if they appeal and get the case dismissed since the public would still be convinced they are guilty. It's a fine line concerning the defendant IMHO. Yet since we do have camera's in courts I can't see us ever reversing that. Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff wrote: "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue, you mentioned seeing a program on cameras in the courtroom, what were the pros and cons? What does this group think, do you think it encourages acting by the lawyers or principals (plaintiffs, defendants) or distractions for the judge or jury -- or the other way around !!! Sue, did the program stimulate any thoughts on whether we can generalize about c's in the c? Looking forward to a discussion, :) LDMF (next thing we know there will be e-mail to the courtroom, or to specific people in the courtroom sitting there with laptops and engaging in chat -- 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 10:59:06 EST, you write:
Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term
grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting
a boyfriend take nude pictures of her.
No "for women only" about it on this end, Terry. I'd think the same thing if
a guy let his girlfriend take nude pix and then complained about it when those
pix ended up in Playgirl. ("Slut" BTW is your word, not mine.)
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bennet's first spin was that the President didn't remember the meeting with Kathleen, the president said the opposite, he said he had a very clear memory of the meeting. I haven't read Ms. Steele's depo as of yet, I'm going to try to read those this weekend :) Concerning the amount of money asked, well isn't it common sense if you owe money that you would want to make enough to pay off your debt? Don't most people do that? I think so. moonshine wrote: Mornin' Kathy, Considering this situation I think it does. It's the timing that troubles me. Also the amount that she sought. She owes $272,000 and the last figure she was seeking was $300,000. mm! What lie did Bennet say? Did Ms.Steele lie in her avadavite? ...Mac -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. Sue Hartigan wrote: I think that if you read what I told Bill you would see that I basically am saying the same thing. There were people in the Simpson trial that were used because they had either written a book (Resnick) or been paid by Hard Copy (Snively) or the Enquirer (the knife brothers). If their testimony had been used perhaps something different would have come of that circus. I was watching Eye to Eye just now, and I don't know anymore about Kathleen Willey than what I saw on 60 Minutes, but it sure looks like a deal where someone is trying hard to discredit her. I do have one question, if everything that these people are saying is true, wouldn't she have known that before she went on 60 Minutes. And knowing that wouldn't she have thought about it quite a bit before she did. I don't know how in the world anyone is going to ever know who lied and who didn't. Not in this mess. IMO Starr's investigation is going to go nowhere. All that is going to come out of it is a big bill for the taxpayers. There are too many people on both sides who are not telling the truth, and there is no way that anyone can ever figure out what is what. That is unless an *eye witness* suddenly jumps out of the bushes. And the way that this thing is going that just might happen. Have you heard anything about the actress from the Highlander show? She supposedly had an affair with Clinton too, and now she is suppose to be before the grand jury, and then there is the model from New York. Does it ever end? -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, Does that mean that every woman who accuses someone of sexual harassment is automatically to be believed and awarded some judgment in court? Bill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:57:16 -0500 Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue :) And what light does the book deal shed? None I'm aware of. Also concerning it being a he said she said. That is the way sexual harrassment always has been, most people don't try a move when there is an audience to watch. They do it in private. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Vi: Actually I thought her to be very creditable also. But then I heard tonight, and I am waiting to find out where the information came from, that she has a book deal, or a book already. Don't know which. Seems to me that everyone in this sordid tale has said something one way and then turned around and said it another way. I doubt that we ever will come to find out what the truth is. Besides every time this allegedly happened the only people involved in it were Clinton and the woman involved. And it is always a he said, she said type of thing, so how can anything be proved. Sue -- 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 _ 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 -- 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 Background Required
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, I deleted much. We can go on arguing over whether a propaganda machine blackmailing reporters, making libelous charges in secret against prosecutors and anyone regarded as hostile, controlling access to the White House to stifle hostile stories about presidential criminality is all just normal operations and we should all be glad to be paying for it. I politeley demur. Mornin' Terry, I never thought of it as an arguement. I was under the impression it was a discussion. I do believe that the propaganda machine has been running hard and fast on both sides of the aisle. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bennet's first spin was that the President didn't remember the meeting with Kathleen, the president said the opposite, he said he had a very clear memory of the meeting. I haven't read Ms. Steele's depo as of yet, I'm going to try to read those this weekend :) Not remembering a meeting or having a differant recollection doesn't always add uo to lying. Concerning the amount of money asked, well isn't it common sense if you owe money that you would want to make enough to pay off your debt? Don't most people do that? I think so. I wonder why she didn't pay off the debt when the insurance checks started rolling infrom her husband's policy. According to the lender she went to great lengths to hide the money from the creditors. The policy was for a million. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. Mornin' Kathy, If there is something then I'm sure it will be used in one form or another against Clinton. That will a matter for the courts or congress. Alot will depend on the evidence and how it holds up under scrutiny. ...Mac 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 Terry: The one thing about the story that appeared in Penthouse that really bothered me was that Susan Carpenter McMillian took that opportunity to defend her client, friend, or whatever Paula Jones is to her. There just seems to be something wrong with that scenario to me. It seems to me that if Paula was that upset about these pictures appearing then instead of using that forum to defend her "client", McMillian should have been yelling about the pictures being there in the first place. I don't know if I am getting my feelings across here very well. Sue Hi Sue, I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. A former husband (boyfriend?) sold the pictures. But I still wonder how she is going to explain this. Why should she have to? The pictures weren't made for the delight of the readers of Penthouse. Is this something that would even shock Pat Robertson? The boyfriend should be sitting in court alongside Our Beloved President. And you know she is going to have to. So who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? Former husband (boyfriend?). I will try to find out which if you insist. Paula Jones got nothing. I do know that Susan Carpenter McMillian was interviewed in the story that went along with the pictures. As to how I would explain the pictures. Well at my murder trial it would be justifiable homicide. I understand. :-} Donna Rice is another story altogether. There was a whole slew of women around that time. None of them brought charges against anyone. I'm not condemning nor am I condoning any of them. It was a legitimate question, IMO. Sue I'll be damned if I can see how pictures sold by a former beaux could cause anyone to look down on Paula Jones. But then she is being blamed for complaining about Our Beloved President waving his dick in her face. People have a strange sense of morality these days. Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Subdural Hematomas
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: You are right they can linger on for months even a year with a subdural. However that is unlikely anymore, with the CT scans etc. But it can and has happened in the past. It depends on the bleed, absorption, and pressure on the brain. Sue S I don't understand what you are saying here. A person can die within hours, minutes for that matter from a subdural. Just as they can linger on for days. Or weeks, or months, more than a year. It depends on the bleed, /w the resultant pressure on the brain. The prosecutors claimed that the 3 or 4 weeks of healing of the skull fracture shown in photographs did not exist. At worst that leaves reasonable doubt. The au pair was convicted because they convinced the jurors that Matthew Eappen died as a result of a skull fracture the day he was taken to the hospital. He lingered for some days and they claimed the healing (which they earlier denied existed at all) was only during that time. I too wondered about the wrist fx. Now Mary was only a nurse and we all know nurses know nothing. :-} But she did save a life over one of these damn things. Because she didn't listen to higher authority. I do take exception with "nurses know nothing". BG :-} Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Paula Jones' Penthouse Pictures
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Patricia Ireland, and Pat Schroder both said that the reason that they have come forward now, and didn't in the past is because this most recent case (if true) was a sexual assault. Sue This may not be from the most reliable sources. It is third-hand hearsay from Susan Carpenter McMillan, a rightwing media flack, through a gossip columnist interviewing such hack to your faithful quoter: -- McMillan is still furious about the silence of liberal feminists. "Where was Pat Ireland when some scum-bucket ex-boyfriend sold topless pictures of Paula to Penthouse magazine? Where was the outrage? They were out there with tape on their mouths." -- I was really surprised that the message hadn't long ago sunk in that Paula Jones has been smeared and dirtied by the most potent PR attack machine ever, betrayed and sold out by friends and family for great paydays. I have wondered if Jones has nerve endings. She has gone through attacks that have driven others to suicide and she had the option of ending it unlike people such as OJ or Marv Albert. Jones is embarrassed by seeing the nude pictures her boyfriend sells to Penthouse spread out for all the world and then she is condemned as if she sold the pictures herself. Seems few believe in any sort of fair play for Clinton's victims? To pass along a bit of totally unsubstantiated gossip (an anonymous caller to C-SPAN), revenues to NOW took a big hit with the recent round of sex stories regarding Our Beloved President. Could explain Patricia Ireland's sudden discovery of a conscience - but only regarding a woman with a decent wardrobe and accent. 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 -- 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
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. Afternoon Kathy, What if the accusations turn out to be false? The damage done to the president and the office of the presidency cannot be erased. ...Mac 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 Mac: Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as it should be again. :( Sue Afternoon Kathy, What if the accusations turn out to be false? The damage done to the president and the office of the presidency cannot be erased. ...Mac -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I don't know really if it is different times or not. My daughter handles it pretty much the same way I did. I think that it really depends on the age of the woman involved. The first time it happened to me I was scared. The second time it really wasn't any big deal, and a simple no thanks seemed to handle it. I wasn't thinking at the time that the guy was my boss, or that he could help or hurt me in the work place, just that I didn't want to get involved with him or anyone else. He was married and so was I. The third guy was a creep, and I let him know so. :) I wonder how this whole thing with Clinton would have turned out if it was Hillary that was doing what Clinton is accused of and these were men who wanted to get further up in the WH. I really do. Sue Hi Sue You know it may be the different times we grew up in that makes the reaction to this sort of behavior so different. I guess when I went to work, dealing with this in a direct manner was just part of the territory. You either dealth with it yourself or it would go on; simple as that. I must say though, you were nicer about it than I was. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: The only nude photos that I know exist of me are on a bear skin rug. And to be honest I don't care who sees them. :) So no you aren't alone. :) Sue I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in the first place? Does everyone except me have those? 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: You are right I haven't paid any attention to the Whitewater case. In fact until yesterday I didn't even know that it was still going on. :( As for people looking at the "backside gossip". Yes they are, mainly because this is what is going to either make or break the President. Also nothing else really is being reported. Sex sells. BG Sue It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. Sue Hartigan wrote: -- 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
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: We saw this same thing happen with Simpson. Everytime a person came forward to tell what they knew they were attacked and their lives were torn upside down. :( Personally after watching that trial I decided that if given the same circumstances I would keep my mouth shut. And unfortunately that is what the bad guys hope for. (not saying that Clinton is the bad guy) Sue No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. -- 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] writes:
Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term
grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting
a boyfriend take nude pictures of her.
No "for women only" about it on this end, Terry. I'd think the same thing if
a guy let his girlfriend take nude pix and then complained about it when those
pix ended up in Playgirl. ("Slut" BTW is your word, not mine.)
Doc
I don't use slut. I am not a puritan. I have no familiarity with the
language of puritanism. I am not one who thinks the public has a right to
knowledge about the private sexual activities of consenting adults. Just my
own private immorality, I guess.
From my own perspective there does not seem to be a great demand for nude
pictures of many men outside the gay community. The sexual activities of
men do not seem to scandalize the public like those of women.
I don't make the rules, Doc.
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 Background Required
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' Terry, I never thought of it as an arguement. I was under the impression it was a discussion. Hope so, Mac. I do believe that the propaganda machine has been running hard and fast on both sides of the aisle. ...Mac I know of no evidence that reputable figures in the Democratic or Republican parties outside Clinton have hired professional rumormongers on an ongoing basis at public expense to spread rumors about opponents, reporters, or other possible enemies. Such things occur during political campaigns on a much smaller scale and are not publicly funded. I think it is rightfully denounced then. 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 Paula Jones' Penthouse Pictures
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Patricia Ireland, and Pat Schroder both said that the reason that they have come forward now, and didn't in the past is because this most recent case (if true) was a sexual assault. Sue Hi Sue, Naturally they wouldn't care to explain that Kathleen Willey is not a lower class type with the wrong hairdo and accent. Paula Jones was assaulted just as surely as Willey was and suffered further intimidation and humiliation. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: The one thing about the story that appeared in Penthouse that really bothered me was that Susan Carpenter McMillian took that opportunity to defend her client, friend, or whatever Paula Jones is to her. There just seems to be something wrong with that scenario to me. It seems to me that if Paula was that upset about these pictures appearing then instead of using that forum to defend her "client", McMillian should have been yelling about the pictures being there in the first place. I don't know if I am getting my feelings across here very well. Sue Seems to me you are, Sue. In order to use "Penthouse" as a forum it might not have been possible to daman the publisher for buying and running the photos. Obviously McMillan, a rightwing flack who is only using Paula Jones for her own agenda IMO, has condemned the publishing of the photos. Are you really denying the pain that Paula Jones made obvious when the pictures were published? 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' Kathy, If there is something then I'm sure it will be used in one form or another against Clinton. That will a matter for the courts or congress. Alot will depend on the evidence and how it holds up under scrutiny. ...Mac Hi Mac, Don't you think that might depend partly on whether Starr's Republican friends can be surgically removed? Starr has been very solicitous of such concerns in the past. 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 A Word From the Leftwing of The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry :) The best way anyone can handle this type of smear campaign is to come back with the comment of "so what" to anyone who tries this. Perhaps those who try to destroy people with this type of gossip will then see they are pretty childish and immature to use this type of mud slinging, and someone's sexual preference doesn't matter one bit to most people. What does matter is how well they do their job. Inspiring thoughts, Kathy, but not always practical. A man was credited with possibly saving President Ford's life by jostling Squeaky Fromm who was trying to shoot Ford. Reporters discovered he was a homosexual. It came as a shock to his family - not to mention friends, neighbors and employer. It tore his life apart. The use of such information (rumormongers are not always terribly conscientious about spreading totally false rumors as people like Tom Foley and Barry Goldwater could tell you) can be devastating to lives. It is like the businesses that used to have rumormongers on their staff to let it be known a guy with leprosy was processing the food a competitor was selling. 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac: Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as it should be again. :( Afternoon Sue, I agree. Also I feel the media in general has also taken a big hit. What was once considered trash journalism has become the norm. I think the newspaper rack at the check-out line in the supermarkets will and should contain the countries leading newspapers and magazines It shouldn't be long before we start seeing color photos of mutants, aliens, and monkey boys on the front page of all the so called respectable publications. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mac, Don't you think that might depend partly on whether Starr's Republican friends can be surgically removed? Starr has been very solicitous of such concerns in the past. Afternoon Terry, From what I understand the House Judiciary Committee headed by Mr. Hyde is well respected by both sides of the aisle. The recent attempt by Newt to create a special select group to have a peak into the investigation by Starr was a blunder IMO, and his talk of impeachment is a tad premature. I'm starting to believe he wants to have impeachment hearings regardless of any evidence to stengthen his parties upcoming elections. I think he blinked and it didn't go unnoticed. ...Mac 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] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: LOL Well I never read their magazines anyway. LOL But I would suspect that Penthouse is probably a bit classier, if that is possible, than Hustler. :) It would be extremely difficult not to be. I don't know if Paula is "lying" or just exaggerating. I do believe something happened in that hotel room. But I also think that the story has grown from what exactly happened. But that is just my opinion on that one. And if you remember it hasn't changed since the inception of this whole thing. I may be wrong, but that is just how I feel. Sue Let me just reiterate the evidence about what occurred: Clinton says: a. He never met Jones. b. He can't remember meeting Jones. c. But he can remember it didn't happen. Paula Jones says: a. She met Clinton. b. He made a sexual assault on her. c. She told witnesses. d. She was threatened and humiliated to keep her quiet. Witnesses say: a. It happened. b. She told them Clinton assaulted her, except - Trooper Ferguson says: Jones wanted to be assaulted. - Jones sister says: Jones was happy to be assaulted. - Other witnesses say: Jones was unhappy to be assaulted. c. Jones was intimidated and humiliated on the job. 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac: I don't know why it surprised me, but it did. The other day I was in the checkouts and there on the Star, Enquirer, and a few others were pictures and stories of Clinton. For some reason it just hit me wrong. The office of the Presidency should hold some kind of respect. But here it is in the same trash that holds the story of some three headed alien that came down and managed to mate with an alligator or something. I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is Quayle BG But do we really want someone in that office that is sooo perfect that they wouldn't be able to relate to the everyday guy. I don't think I would. Ther has to be a happy medium out there somewhere. Sue Afternoon Sue, It's the sexiness of the case that sells. Americans drool over it and the press relishes it. I think if we put anyone under the same microscope as Clinton there would be something there for someone to take issue with. ...Mac 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 Terry: There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact that things do seem to get added. First being she took until just a short time before the statue of limitations ran out to file her claim. If she was so humiliated and hurt why did it take so long? Secondly she was id'd as only Paula in the obscure magazine The Spectator, and no one even knew who this person was even if they happened to be the one person who happened to read this publication. Now she is saying that her sexual ability has decreased due to this happening. Which IMO is something that will be impossible to prove one way or the other. Sue Let me just reiterate the evidence about what occurred: Clinton says: a. He never met Jones. b. He can't remember meeting Jones. c. But he can remember it didn't happen. Paula Jones says: a. She met Clinton. b. He made a sexual assault on her. c. She told witnesses. d. She was threatened and humiliated to keep her quiet. Witnesses say: a. It happened. b. She told them Clinton assaulted her, except - Trooper Ferguson says: Jones wanted to be assaulted. - Jones sister says: Jones was happy to be assaulted. - Other witnesses say: Jones was unhappy to be assaulted. c. Jones was intimidated and humiliated on the job. -- 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] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact that things do seem to get added. First being she took until just a short time before the statue of limitations ran out to file her claim. If she was so humiliated and hurt why did it take so long? Most women never report such an incident or a more serious rape. Jones says she had no intention of reporting anything until the continuing stories of her dalliances with Clinton were put in print. You should understand that suit was filed under a somewhat novel interpretation of one law and that time had expired on normal charges. I think the time women take to level charges is a complete red herring. Most of those who use this argument against Jones have no problem with Anita Hill's much longer silence. Secondly she was id'd as only Paula in the obscure magazine The Spectator, and no one even knew who this person was even if they happened to be the one person who happened to read this publication. She didn't read it. It was pointed out to her by a friend who did read it. Her circle of acquaintances was quite well aware of the whispers and knew damn well who "Paula" was. Now she is saying that her sexual ability has decreased due to this happening. Which IMO is something that will be impossible to prove one way or the other. Sue I think personally that is a silly claim and is only a ploy by her lawyers to shore up the legalities. Seems a blunder to me but what do I know. Fantastic claims are upheld in court. That Jones was upset should be obvious to anyone. Her determination and unwillingness to compromise is incredible. She has taken blasts from the Clinton hatchet men and broadsides from the like of Sam Donaldson that would unnerve a charging rhinoceros. 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 12:15:13 EST, you write: Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as it should be again. :( Sue I can't imagine anyone so simon pure as to have nothing in his/her background that the scandal mongers could use against him/her. That being the case, I think your first PP is right on. Would you want to run, if everything you ever did, said, didn't do, didn't say, etc., was up for grabs? Add to that everything that could be said about you -- perhaps on tape -- between your "friends" and I think my answer would be a resounding no. I hope you're wrong about the office itself, though only time will tell. History does have a few parellels -- presidents accused of scandalous conduct -- and the office has survived. Doc 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
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 12:43:00 EST, you write: The only nude photos that I know exist of me are on a bear skin rug. And to be honest I don't care who sees them. :) So no you aren't alone. :) Sue LOL Sue! I have the equivalent of those, too -- no bear skin rug, just bare skin taken when I was under a year old. Guess is Penthouse is really desperate they can have those if they want to pay for them. Doc 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
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 13:07:42 EST, you write: From my own perspective there does not seem to be a great demand for nude pictures of many men outside the gay community. The sexual activities of men do not seem to scandalize the public like those of women. Now if I were a real friend I'd subscribe to Playgirl for you. Those centerfolds aren't just there to make the magazine larger, you know. I remember when a new nightclub opened in Peoria offering male strippers instead of the female strippers offered by the other places. A colleague of mine insisted that would be of interest only to gay males. I dared him to visit it one night -- he and his wife took me up on it and discovered an audience of enthusiastic screaming females. Believe it or not, women are as interested in men as men are in women. Doc 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 Doc: Actually I kinda like my nude pictures, now that I don't have a boyfriend that my brother threatens to show them to. BG I don't think Penthouse has the kind of money that either of us would be asking for these special pictures. :) Sue LOL Sue! I have the equivalent of those, too -- no bear skin rug, just bare skin taken when I was under a year old. Guess is Penthouse is really desperate they can have those if they want to pay for them. 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
LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:12:13 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: I think it's obvious that this is the kind of prejudice that convinced our forefathers to institute the innocent until proven guilty phrasing in the Constitution. Bill, you can hunt and search, you can use a magnifying glass, you can use a computer to search it but nowhere in our Constitution is there any such statement. The prejudice against a raped woman should be understood in this context. The rapist's lawyer always attacks the woman ruthlessly as a promiscuous, vindictive woman. If you go into a case saying every woman who claims to be raped is lying and that there is always another side, then you should most certainly not be permitted on a jury, any jury. My prejudice is for the truth and I deny that every woman asks for it. I have never and will never claim that women do not at times make totally false claims and that the truth may be entirely on the other side. Best, Terry HI Terry, LOLnice speech. yawn Best, Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:18:59 EST DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 07:34:36 EST, you write: Thank goodness we all believe so strongly in innocent until *proven* guilty, or do we?? As one commentator remarked just because we don't like the accused and just because he is President, isn't he entitled to the same avenues open to the accuser and to the same (if not more so) benefit of the doubt we give the accused? jackief Jackief, I was in central Illinois when WC was first elected, and you could cut the Clinton-hate with a knife. They hated him before they knew anything about him other than that he was young and didn't do military service. In fact, the most usual complaint was that he was too young to have been in World War II . Some of those folks were ready to fly to DC and commit murder before they guy was even inaugurated. You can't change that kind of thing -- the rock-hard conservatism is just as impervious to reasonableness, IMO, as is the far left. Fringes just are that way. Doc H Doc, And, can you believe this...some people think he's a liar and he hasn't even been given a lie detector test. How can they really know for sure??? Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Background Required
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Terry No they are not the most effective means of showing lies. If they were, they would be permissible in court. Any antisocial can pass a lie detector, even one who is not a criminal. Pathological liars can pass a lie detector; people whose physical responses do not follow a normal pattern can pass a test; the person giving the test can mess up the findings; the phrasing of the questions can alter the findings. One other thing I disagree with--Starr just calls everyone to testify at the grand jury--seems he has a bigger stick in this case to initimidate in some respects. So both sides are engaging in some 'dirty pool', not just the wh. jackief Hi Jackie, I agree completely. This is obviously a controversial issue and there are those who have reasons for having us believe that lie detectors are the best way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not. Perhaps they have investments in companies who make the equipment. Who knows? Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, Hmmm, lemme see if I understand what you are saying here. It's ok for people to come out and accuse Clinton of doing things and to delve into his personal life and attack him on every front possible. But it's not ok for Clinton to do the same thing to his accusers??? Sounds like a double standard to me. Too bad this whole thing has to be fought in the media. Bill On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:10:49 -0500 Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You mean to tell me they're just NOW taking the gloves off? Hell I never realized they had them on. I mean look how many lives they have destroyed, lets be honest they are digging up dirt for one reason only, and that is to take away the attention from the allegations that are being charged, their thinking is if we can come up with something juicier than what the person is alleging then we will take the spotlight off of Bill and put it on so and so. What people don't seem to care about is the one thing the WH does is no matter who it is they will put out anything they can to destroy that person. I bet if Mother Teresa was alive and said something they would put out some dirt on her also, alleging she was a leader of this weird cult or something. Truth doesn't matter in this case anymore only who is willing to get dirtier than the other. Has it dawned on anyone that no matter how many people you have had sex with doesn't mean that you can't be sexually harassed? The WH thinking sounds like the old belief that a hooker couldn't be raped. Well they can be and people are convicted for it. Who Paula has slept with does not matter in this case. Who Bill slept with does not matter, what does matter is did he do as she alleges? Sue Hartigan wrote: 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 -- 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 _ 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: HI Kathy, That's what makes the statement so damaging to her. No one coerced her to say that on the statement. It's what she wrote. Obviously, she was mistaken about not meeting with Clinton, but the meaning of the statement seems to be that if she had such a horrible experience she would have remembered it when she made the statement after her husband's death. Bill On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:37:01 -0500 Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But Sue we already know that statement is false, her and Clinton both admit they met that day. So now I'm left wondering why did they want her to sign a statement saying she didn't meet with anyone? There is something fishy going on I'm just not sure what it is. Yet there has to be a reason they wanted her to say she didn't meet with anyone. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: According to the lawyer who is handling the case for the clients her husband stole the money from, Kathleen made a sworn statement which said the on the day of her husband's death she went to the WH to do her daily job, and talked to no one there that day. She is also still legally responsible for the money that her husband stole which is in the neighborhood of 30 thousand dollars. And the clients are actively trying to recover it. I got this off of Bryant Gumbles show last night, where the attorney appeared with the sworn statement of Kathleen's. :( -- 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 _ 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 Sexual History/Herstory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:18:18 EST DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-20 22:06:41 EST, you write: But aversion to sex and partaking of it wouldn't seem to be the same thing. Maybe she did a lot more, trying to overcome the problem? :-} Truly heroic! Doc Hi Doc, ROTF here! Sort of like getting back on the horse before she loses her nerve? Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: To be absolutely honest even if I were qualified, or even over qualified to be President, and had nothing in my background that could hurt me in the least, I wouldn't run. Especially right now. And that is where we are going to lose good people. Because even if they don't have anything in their backgrounds that is that horrible, they are going to be afraid that things will be made up. IMO You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he left office. I hope that I am wrong on this one. I really do. I guess we will be finding out soon by seeing who runs. We might just end up with one person in the running though, Quayle. :( Sue I can't imagine anyone so simon pure as to have nothing in his/her background that the scandal mongers could use against him/her. That being the case, I think your first PP is right on. Would you want to run, if everything you ever did, said, didn't do, didn't say, etc., was up for grabs? Add to that everything that could be said about you -- perhaps on tape -- between your "friends" and I think my answer would be a resounding no. I hope you're wrong about the office itself, though only time will tell. History does have a few parellels -- presidents accused of scandalous conduct -- and the office has survived. 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 I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: Our firemen have just sold out their 1999 calender this year already. :) I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I was. BG Playgirl has quite a subscription list too. :) Sue Now if I were a real friend I'd subscribe to Playgirl for you. Those centerfolds aren't just there to make the magazine larger, you know. I remember when a new nightclub opened in Peoria offering male strippers instead of the female strippers offered by the other places. A colleague of mine insisted that would be of interest only to gay males. I dared him to visit it one night -- he and his wife took me up on it and discovered an audience of enthusiastic screaming females. Believe it or not, women are as interested in men as men are in women. 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: LOL You are certainly on the mark about that. :) I don't know that I would want a perfect person in the WH anyway. It would be very difficult to relate to us mere mortals if he was. IMO Sue That guy from the monastery would almost certainly have his sexual orientation questioned, Sue. Quayle? No, that's going too far IMO. 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is Quayle BG That guy from the monastery would almost certainly have his sexual orientation questioned, Sue. Think David Souter or Janet Reno. Barbara Mikulski was even subliminally charged. She couldn't deny it without uttering the dread word. Quayle? No, that's going too far IMO. Doc Innocent, Sue. Not stupid. There actually have been wonderful candidates with spotless records in recent times though they didn't fare well. Sen. Paul Simon is an easy one. Proxmire. Dukakis was even nominated. They had to claim he was crazy and didn't look good in a tank. He was even accused of being horrors a liberal. It was a canard. The supply of decent people is not so meager that we have to elect degenerates. Some might have noticed that Al Gore is quite clean. He is a nightmare for Republicans who would promise a bleak future for them if they did the right thing and cleaned up the mess in the White House. 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 GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:46:13 EST, you write: And, can you believe this...some people think he's a liar and he hasn't even been given a lie detector test. How can they really know for sure??? Bill Sure. The people I mentioned thought he was a liar and he hadn't said anything yet. Doc 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
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:43:12 EST, you write: I don't think Penthouse has the kind of money that either of us would be asking for these special pictures. :) Sue Darn!! Another good idea down the drain. Doc 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 98-03-21 15:56:55 EST, you write: You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he left office. I didn't so much mean Nixon as Andrew Jackson and people like that, accused of sexual peccadilos and the like. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Sexual History/Herstory
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:46:58 EST, you write: ROTF here! Sort of like getting back on the horse before she loses her nerve? Bill Bill, give a girl some warning, will you? I nearly peed my pants! Back on the horse indeed! Ya gotta love it! Doc 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
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:57:11 EST, you write: I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I was. BG Those guys are really gorgeous, aren't they? (Hey, folks, that's art appreciation, not prurient interest. Isn't it?) Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:56:55 EST, you write: You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he left office. I didn't so much mean Nixon as Andrew Jackson and people like that, accused of sexual peccadilos and the like. Doc The most interesting one of all, of course, was Grover Cleveland. He survived the scandal of an illegitimate son. Cleveland told his campaign to answer all questions honestly and fully. That didn't completely occur. There was a secret that was not divulged. Cleveland had his name placed on the birth certificate. The circle of men for whom the woman was providing relief from home and hearth were all married except for Cleveland and in order to preserve domestic tranquility for his friends Cleveland took credit for work that he likely had not accomplished. An intelligent electorate returned Cleveland to the White House after a lapse. All our early presidents were accused of all manner of crimes. They do not seem to me to have been of the dreary quality that so concerns this group. 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 Appologies for the snappy reply.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Steve, No apology necessary, Steve. I didn't consider your reply snappy or rude in any way. I find all of your notes to be thought provoking and you certainly add to the value of this discussion group. Bill On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:01:51 - Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would just like to say I'm sorry for the snappy reply to bills comment. I remember vividly as anyone would checking the underside of our car before going shopping. My dad going on armed guard duty for four consecutive weeks. Waking in the morning to hear that a guy I had laughed and joked with only a week before had had his brains blown out, the guy had a wife and kids and to a impressionable 16yr old, well you know the result. All countries have a bloody history of one kind or another. What you said in a way Bill is right, justice is justice, not right or fair just justice. Peace Steve 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
