Re: L&I Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: They were talking last night about how these kids would only spend x number of years in custody, and then they would be released as well as their records sealed. Their faces have been on Newsweek, Time, etc. There is absolutely no secret of who they are. The prior record of the one boy has been discussed in detail on many of the news shows, and the parents and grandparents are making the rounds of the morning talk shows. I don't know how any of this was made public in the beginning, but everyone from the grandfather on down are now discussing it quite openly with anyone who will listen. Sue > Hi Bill > > What a novel idea, work to get the law changed . I agree with you, but > then working to change a law may not be as much fun as sitting and bad > mouthing a judge that doesn't do what you consider to be right. > > Another topic: Had to share this with you. Didn't get a chance to post it > early this morning. It appears that we have a local controversy regarding > whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are > against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of > the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to > Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to > happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on > tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this. > > 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: L&I Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: The law here is that if you own a gun and a kid gets a hold of that gun and either hurts himself or someone else with it, you are held liable. But if your gun is stolen, I don't think that they hold you liable for any crimes that are committed with it. I don't see how they could unless may it would be because you may have had that gun illegally, such as not registered or something. Or maybe not reported it stolen. Sue > > Hi Jackie, > > Yeah, we have people getting injured and killed via gunshots down here > and it always seems to be someone who would never touch the gun or who > had gone through such an intensive training and safety course that they'd > never have an accident. > > Then we have those brilliant people who don't lock up their guns and > manage to get them stolen. There's a Catch 22 for you. How can you > protect yourself with a gun if you have to keep it locked up? > > A senator from Illinois is presenting a bill that would create a law to > punish gun owners whose guns are stolen and then used in a crime, or > whose guns are involved in an accidental shooting. Of course, the NRA > opposes this. > > 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: L&I RE: HELP--NEED AN OLD POST
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie and All :) Okay I have been trying out this service for the past couple of weeks, to see if I like it or not, plus it's free :) To look up any old posting from the Law list just go here: (still not sure if I'm going to keep this service or not though). http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/index.html Jackie Fellows wrote: > > Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi gang > > The phantom, Ed, has been at it again. I just heard from Dr. Iacono > about the polygraph stuff and he has no idea about refusing to turn over > data and the claim that his survey was fraudulent. He asked me for > details and I do not have the post with the footnote information or the > post with the address. (Thank you Ed). And the file I saved is > gibberish, only symbols. So if anyone can help me I would appreciate > it. I posted Dr. Iacono that I would forward this info. to him if > anyone on the list still had it. I know this is a dead topic, but it is > rather nice when someone as well known as he is takes the time to write > back. -- 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: L&I Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: As far as I know there is no legit reason for assault weapons. Certainly not for hunting. In LA the sergeants (cops) had to get special permission to carry M-16 A2 Service rifles because they were outgunned by the bad guys. There is also a special unit of the SWAT team that has these, but can only use them with permission from higher ups. Of course a lot of the bad guys already have them, and no permission is needed for them to use them. Sue Sue > Hi Bill > > I know that there are good arguments on both sides of the camp on this > issue. I grew up with guns in the house all my life and my girls were taught > gun safety and the whole works. I shoot although not the greatest and Ed is > a target shooter. Of course, we do not have children in the house and our > dobes are a pretty good protection system against them getting stolen. We > have a number of LE friends who Ed shoots with and I enjoy the outings. So > it would be difficult for me, personally, to support the banning of guns even > though I see they do have some valid points and see how often guns are so > readily available for those who shouldn't have guns. The assault weapons are > something else entirely though--this IMO should not even be manufactured. > > 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
L&I Juvenile Records (was biased)
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-04-03 17:19:50 EST, you write: << It appears that we have a local controversy regarding whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this. jackief >> I wondered about that when we started hearing/reading all the background on him, but thought perhaps different states had different laws. Who released the records, do you know, and did they just give them to the tv station or what? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Starr Still Around
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Starr Urged To Indict Lewinsky Clinton would become unindicted co-conspirator WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 3) -- The office of Independent Counsel Ken Starr is considering seeking an indictment against Monica Lewinsky for perjury, and naming President Bill Clinton as an unindicted co-conspirator, according to two sources familiar with Starr's investigation. The option has been considered, and researched, since the early days of the Clinton-Lewinsky probe, but the sources say this week's dismissal of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit has intensified debate over it. Starr's office is investigating whether Clinton and Lewinsky had an affair, and, if so, whether Clinton asked the former White House intern to lie about it under oath to Jones' attorneys. When asked at a news conference Friday morning about the reports of a possible indictment, Clinton said, "On the other matter, you know ... I'm not going to comment on that." "I'm going on with my business. Others can comment on that," said the president. Some of the more aggressive prosecutors in Starr's office are encouraging Starr to indict Lewinsky and name Clinton as an unindicted co-conspirator, the sources said. Under this scenario, Starr would seek an indictment of Lewinsky for perjury and subornation of perjury for her alleged efforts to get co-worker Linda Tripp to lie under oath to Jones' attorneys. The indictment would also name others "known to the grand jury" who allegedly participated in the scheme, the sources said. This unindicted co-conspirator option has been considered and researched since early in the Whitewater investigation and is labeled "the Nixon approach" by one of its advocates. But one source stressed this is just one of many options. and said Starr could air his case publicly by indicting Lewinsky without naming the president in the charges. This source said Justice Department rules for naming unindicted co-conspirators were tightened because of criticism Watergate prosecutors received for using the tactic against President Richard Nixon. Said this source: "The evidence against him would have to be cold, without cracks. Otherwise, it is risky both politically and legally." This source said prosecutors in Starr's office were "surprisingly unconcerned" about the dismissal of the Paula Jones case although they acknowledge "a tougher public relations climate now for at least the short term." And the source forcefully defended the office's decision to subpoena records of Lewinsky's book purchases. Said the source: "Judge Starr is well aware of what Monica Lewinsky reads - her apartment was thoroughly searched. The records are necessary to corroborate dates of purchases and alleged gifts - not to get her reading list." Lawyers await ruling on immunity agreement One potential barrier is the debate over whether Lewinsky has a binding immunity agreement with the Office of the Independent Counsel, as her attorney contends. One of the sources said no prosecutorial decisions can be made until the judge rules on that dispute. Another source, an attorney consulted for research on the issue, said indicting Lewinsky would give Starr an opportunity to publicly air his evidence against Clinton and others. The risk, this source acknowledged, would be a potential public backlash against Starr for indicting the former White House intern on allegations that stem from Jones' now-dismissed civil case. But Starr indicated Thursday he would not allow the Jones case ruling to affect his decisions. He explained that the scope of his office's Lewinsky probe is "very different." In any event, the sources said no decision on such major strategic approaches was imminent, citing the looming Lewinsky-immunity ruling and continued failure to reach an agreement for the president to give his version of events. In a decision related to the immunity ruling, handed down this week, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Halloway Johnson ruled that Lewinsky's first attorney must testify before Starr's grand jury about conversations he had with Lewinsky, the Washington Post reported Friday. Sources told the Post that Johnson concluded that attorney-client privilege did not apply to attorney Francis D. Carter, because evidence suggests Lewinsky intended to commit a crime when she hired him. Lewinsky retained Carter to help her draft her January 7 affidavit for Jones' lawyers, in which she denied having a sexual relationship with Clinton, the Post said. Correspondents John King and Bob Franken contributed to this report. Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Hi Jackie...Bill, Hi Bill...Jackie
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Ron LOL Usually I post the name of the person of the post I am answering. Let's see, I think I have posted to a number of others. I believe all my posts early this morning were to Terry. And I believe yesterday there were quite a few to Doc. I (and I think Bill) post all posts at one time. Some of us are only on line at certain hours and do not have the luxury to post at any old time and receive the posts in a bunch. Better use your little game you seem to be getting bored ( : o jackief Ronald Helm wrote: > "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Has anyone else noticed that every post form one or the other is directed to > the other? Don't the rest of our opinions count for either of you? This is > not a dialogue, or a mutual admiration society :-) Ron > > Women have their faults. Men have only two. > Everything they say. Everything they do. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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
L&I For Doc: [Fwd: Smokes in the Rain]
Hi Doc Couldn't resist--thought this was great. Thought of you and me. jackief -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad V Bena) >From: Courtney Wangen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Smokes in the Rain >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I THINK YOU WILL LIKE THIS ONE. >Two old ladies were waiting for a bus and one of them was smoking >>a cigarette. It started to rain, so the old lady reached into >>her purse, took out a condom, cut off the tip and slipped it over her >>cigarette and continued to smoke. Sort of a raincoat for her >>cigarette. >> >>Her friend saw this and said, "Hey that's a good idea! What is it >>that you put over your cigarette?" >> >>The other old lady said, "It's a condom." >> >>"A condom? Where do you get those?" >> >>The lady with the cigarette told her friend that you could purchase >>condoms at the pharmacy. When the two old ladies arrived downtown, >>the old lady with all the questions went into the pharmacy and asked >>the pharmacist if he sold condoms. The pharmacist said yes, but >>looked a little surprised that this old lady was interested in >>condoms, but he asked her, "What size do you want?" >> >>The old lady thought for a minute and then said, "One that will fit a >>Camel!" >> > >
L&I RE: HELP--NEED AN OLD POST
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi gang The phantom, Ed, has been at it again. I just heard from Dr. Iacono about the polygraph stuff and he has no idea about refusing to turn over data and the claim that his survey was fraudulent. He asked me for details and I do not have the post with the footnote information or the post with the address. (Thank you Ed). And the file I saved is gibberish, only symbols. So if anyone can help me I would appreciate it. I posted Dr. Iacono that I would forward this info. to him if anyone on the list still had it. I know this is a dead topic, but it is rather nice when someone as well known as he is takes the time to write back. jackief -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Annual Internet cleaning
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill Yes, Catholic school will do that for some people, won't it. I cannot figure out how the Jesuits made it through history. I had the nuns of St. Joseph for both grade and high school and they were bearcats. But, I still think fondly of some of them and don't regret most of my education from them jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Jackie, > > Actually I think that trait has been around a long time. It is > incredible what some people will do simply to get positive feedback or > follow instructions from someone who is or has the appearance of being an > authority figure. > > Of course, having gone to a Catholic grade and high school, I may simply > be sensitized to this trait. :) > > Bill > > On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:15:42 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Jeez, Bill > > > >The article I read is starting to sound more and more like it is > >really on > >the mark. The authors claim we are becoming mindless and simply don't > >give > >anything thought to things before we do them. > > > >jackief > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >> > >> HI Jackie, > >> > >> The place where I used to work had a PA system. A co-worker pulled > >a > >> prank that he thought would simply be greeted with chuckles. (This > >was > >> not on April 1, however) > >> > >> He dialed the PA system and announced: > >> > >> "Attention all employees. GTE has just informed us that they will > >be > >> cleaning out the phone lines at 9am this morning. A short burst of > >> compressed air will be sent through the lines to blow out all the > >> accumulated dust. To avoid getting dust on yourself or your desk > >please > >> remove the hand set from your phone and place it inside an inter > >office > >> envelope. Do this at 8:58am. You will be notified when it is safe > >to > >> replace your hand set." > >> > >> He made the announcement about 8:30am and then forgot about it. > >Around > >> 9:10am he walked through the word processing department and EVERY > >one of > >> the phones had the handset sitting there inside the envelope. > >LOL...a > >> quick survey that day showed that many others had fallen for the > >prank > >> also. I was feeling lucky that I was sitting in his office when he > >made > >> the announcement. > >> > >> Bill > >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:37:00 -0600 Jackie Fellows > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> writes: > >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >Hi Kathy > >> > > >> >I got that message about 2 months ago, so I recognized it and > >started > >> >laughing as soon as I saw it. > >> > > >> >jackief > >> > >> > >_ > >> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > >> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > >> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > > > > >-- > >In the sociology room the children learn > >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > > > >I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > > > > > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > _ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe 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: L&I Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill Or is it that an N of 1 suffices for evidence in all cases? Excuse me, an N of 2. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Jackie, > > Sometimes the air only SEEMS to smell better to people because they have > gotten used to the stench. And, of course, the smell of ANY air not > like their own tends to make the real smellers nervous. > > Bill > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: Thomas was polygraph
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill LOL...it must be because I still think I am playing baseball instead of basketball. You are really keeping me in great athletic shape, you know. . Or maybe it is those early hours catching up with me (teehee). I'll have to try and catch that movie, sounds good. I want to see the Odd Couple II one. Those two really make my day usually. Of course, we call Freud "Grouchy ole' man" or "Walter Matheau" sometimes. I caught an interview of them this morning and, whether an act or not, they act so much like their characters that I went to work in a great mood--even danced for the students in their lounge. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Jackie, > > LOL...you're on a roll today! This reminds me of a movie I just saw. > Titled "The Big Lebowski". It is another hilarious Coen brothers movie. > Your comment about a person behaving any way he wants reminded me of the > John Goodman character in the movie, especially a scene where he loses it > in a coffee shop and is warned that he would be asked to leave. Great > fun! In fact, that entire character Goodman plays reminds me > of..oh well, I probably shouldn't delve into it too far, if you > know what I mean. :) > > Bill > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I COTD: Tuggle, Debra Sue
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: A former mental patient in Little Rock, Arkansas, Tuggle was arrested in March 1984 and charged with murdering four of her own children over the past decade. The first two victims -- sons Thomas Bates, age two, and William Henry, 21 months -- were suffocated at different times in 1974. Another son, nine-month-old Ronald Johnson, suffered a similar fate in 1976, while two-year-old Tomekia Paxton, the daughter of Tuggle's boyfriend, was deliberately drowned in 1982. Held on $750,000 bond pending trial and ultimate conviction on the outstanding murder counts, Tuggle was also suspected -- but never charged -- in the death of a fifth child. Coroner Steve Nawoiczyk told newsmen that a faulty legal system had permitted Tuggle to remain at large for years, escaping prosecution in the string of homicides that claimed her children's lives. No motive was presented in the case. Tuggle was convicted on one count of second-degree murder in September 1984 and sentenced to ten years in prison. The three other counts of murder were dismissed by the court on grounds of insufficient physical evidence, while state law barred introduction of her standing conviction to prove a series of pattern crimes. -- 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: L&I Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill I know that there are good arguments on both sides of the camp on this issue. I grew up with guns in the house all my life and my girls were taught gun safety and the whole works. I shoot although not the greatest and Ed is a target shooter. Of course, we do not have children in the house and our dobes are a pretty good protection system against them getting stolen. We have a number of LE friends who Ed shoots with and I enjoy the outings. So it would be difficult for me, personally, to support the banning of guns even though I see they do have some valid points and see how often guns are so readily available for those who shouldn't have guns. The assault weapons are something else entirely though--this IMO should not even be manufactured. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Jackie, > > Yeah, we have people getting injured and killed via gunshots down here > and it always seems to be someone who would never touch the gun or who > had gone through such an intensive training and safety course that they'd > never have an accident. > > Then we have those brilliant people who don't lock up their guns and > manage to get them stolen. There's a Catch 22 for you. How can you > protect yourself with a gun if you have to keep it locked up? > > A senator from Illinois is presenting a bill that would create a law to > punish gun owners whose guns are stolen and then used in a crime, or > whose guns are involved in an accidental shooting. Of course, the NRA > opposes this. > > Bill > > On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:22:12 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Hi Bill > > > >The tornado at St Peter edged out any news on the 13 year old in our > >wonderful paper. But, yesterday Tom (the one that was the police > >chief in > >Grand Meadow) and I talked to the county sheriff and it sounds like > >the > >child has not had an easy time. But, it still shouldn't have caused > >him to > >kill others. I do know that guns were left lying around the house > >when he > >lived up here and the mother was not worried as she said the kids knew > >about guns and what they go do. She also said that they wouldn't > >touch the > >guns. > > > >jackief > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >> > >> Hi Jackie, > >> > >> I thought your phrasing was impeccable, as usual, and you are 100% > >> correct in what you posted. :) > >> > >> The more I read about that 13 year old the more bizarre that case > >gets. > >> Looks to me that not only the kid, but his father and step-father > >had a > >> lot of problems. Too bad they can't see these things ahead of time > >and > >> intercede. Also, I think that kids need to be sensitized to the > >fact > >> that they should immediately report any comments from another kid > >that > >> they plan to kill or hurt someone. Times really change. When I was > >a > >> kid the worst that happened was a fist fight to settle differences. > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:23:33 -0600 Jackie Fellows > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> writes: > >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >Hi Bill > >> > > >> >I guess I did sort of phrase it wrong : ). Lucky some of you know > >me > >> >and can > >> >fill in the gaps when I quickly write something. But I do know > >there > >> >are not > >> >many I talk too would take a polygraph. > >> > > >> >There is sure a flurry of activity going on around here over the > >> >Arkansas > >> >thing. The 13 year old spent summers up here with his > >grandparents. > >> >My > >> >colleague who appeared on tv has been swamped with calls wanting an > >> >interview. He had CBS sitting in his driveway, CNN called, NBC, > >> >Fox--really > >> >something wild. > >> > > >> >jackief > >> > > >> >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 06:53:52 -0600 Jackie Fellows > >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> writes: > >> >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Hi Sue > >> >> > > >> >> >Thanks for ferreting out pertinent info. for all of us. I am > >not > >> >sure > >> >> >I > >> >> >read this right--my eyes might be biased , but it seems the > >> >> >Supreme > >> >> >court is not willing to accept the idea that the polygraph is > >> >> >admissible. > >> >> >Am I correct in this?? > >> >> > > >> >> >jackief > >> >> > >> >> Hi Jackie, > >> >> > >> >> Yes, you are correct. Although the court did not rule out > >> >acceptance of > >> >> lie detector tests in future cases that may be supported by more > >> >> compelling evidence, they ruled that the evidence presented in > >this > >> >case > >> >> was not sufficient to warrant approval. In other words, they did > >> >not buy > >> >> the amicus brief citing the 90% acc
L&I Johnson: April 02 Summary
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The supporters of Suzanne Johnson rallied behind her in court today, as her grown children and several of her former clients testified that she loved the children she cared for and would never abuse children. The proceedings began with Johnson herself returning to the stand to finish her cross-examination by the state. Prosecutor Eugenia Eyherabide jabbed at Johnson for lying repeatedly to police, suggesting to her that such lying must have required a lot of thought and strategy. Johnson once again said she was scared and confused, and did not know what she was thinking at the time. She noted that It ate her up inside to lie to police, but said she was feeling badly because she had not strapped Jasmine into her high chair. Johnson would not concede she ever got angry with children, only irritated. Eyherabide once again had Johnson demonstrate how she knocked the chair causing Jasmine to fall, then challenged Johnson about where the high chair tray was located. The place Johnson pointed out was different than in the police pictures, but Johnson said her boyfriend had later moved it when he fed another daycare child. In an emotional moment on redirect by the defense, Johnson's attorney, Marc Carlos, showed her a picture of Jasmine, and Johnson tearfully said she did not intend to hurt the little baby. Suzanne Johnson's son, David Johnson, testified and described his childhood growing up with a hard-working single mother whose husband had left when her children were young. David said that his mother always provided for her kids, even when it meant standing on welfare lines. He also said his mother was wonderful with children, including his own, and she influenced how he raised his children. In addition David never saw his mother hit a child except when she would give him a swat on the rear to discipline him when he was a child. The defense then called Camilla Honeycutt, a hairdresser, to cast doubt on the testimony of Crystal Miller, Jasmine Miller's mother. She told of how Crystal got a call from Johnson during one incident when she was in the hair salon. Crystal heard a baby screaming in the background and asked if it was Jasmine. Johnson apparently said it was, and Crystal went to pick her up. This contradicts Crystal's assertion that Johnson always told her everything was fine with the baby. (It should be noted that Honeycutt is less than an objective witness, since Crystal is suing her for a bad hair-do, and she is counter-suing Crystal.) Another witness, Rachel Hightower, who worked at a church Crystal and Travis had attended, testified that she spoke to Crystal after Jasmine died and offered to bring her food. Hightower found it strange that not only did Crystal take her up on it, but she cited a very specific list of what she wanted. Hightower also described the pain she went through when she lost her own child, as opposed to Crystal, who she apparently seemed calm and was not crying when Hightower visited her after Jasmine's death. Robert Blaylock, Suzanne Johnson's boyfriend, was a very loyal witness for the defense, saying that he fully believed in and trusted Johnson. He believed that Johnson is honest and that she lied to police only because she was under the tremendous stress of the event and the police interrogation. Johnson talked about how good she was with children and that he never saw her hit any of them or saw anything out of the ordinary. He thought Johnson treated the children like grandchildren and was shocked at this whole situation. Blaylock claimed that Johnson normally never became unglued when under stress and kept her composure. After Blaylock's testimony, various parents -- and even a child who was once under Johnson's care --testified in Johnson's defense. The child, a nine-year-old girl, felt very affectionate towards Johnson. She said that in her heart, Johnson was "gramma." Johnson never hit her, and she never saw Johnson hit any other child. This witness is the child who stopped by Johnson's place on the day of the incident when her friend was injured while riding a bicycle. She described how Johnson took care of her friend and said nothing seemed out of the ordinary at Johnson's daycare center that day. Deanne Cervantes said Johnson was a friend as well as a treasured daycare provider for her children. Cervantes said she dropped by Johnson's home frequently, and never saw anything disturbing. Her daughter loved Johnson and would use any excuse to go see her. She could never imagine Johnson doing what she's accused of. Other clients of Johnson such as Arthur and Susan Burdett and Julie Boykin supported Cervantes' portrayal of Johnson. Tomorrow, the defense will call its last two witnesses, Johnson's neighbor and her daughter, Cindy Vaughan. Then the state's rebuttal case will begin. Closings arguments could take place on Monday, April 6. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and
Re: L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William J. Foristal wrote: > Hi Jackie, > > LOL...sometimes the only really suitable reply is "Well, duh!" > > Bill > Hi Bill Leave it to you--another short reply I have to add to my list of short, clear replies 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: L&I Re: Thomas was polygraph
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill ROTF!! Is that similar to hot flashes?? jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > HI Jackie, > > It must be that Cartesian part of my brain causing flashes of > epistemology. :) > > (Fill in anecdote about my cousin in the CIA here) > > Bill > > On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:13:34 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Oh Bill > > > >I didn't think of that, silly me. > > > >jackief > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >> > >> Hi Jackie, > >> > >> He made it up. :) > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:07:28 -0600 Jackie Fellows > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> writes: > >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >Hi Terry > >> > > >> >Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a > >> >perjuror. I am really curious?? > >> > > >> >jackief > >> > > >> >-- > >> >In the sociology room the children learn > >> >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > >> > > >> >I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >> > > >> > >> > >_ > >> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > >> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > >> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > > > > >-- > >In the sociology room the children learn > >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > > > >I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > > > > > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > _ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe 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: L&I Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill What a novel idea, work to get the law changed . I agree with you, but then working to change a law may not be as much fun as sitting and bad mouthing a judge that doesn't do what you consider to be right. Another topic: Had to share this with you. Didn't get a chance to post it early this morning. It appears that we have a local controversy regarding whether the making public of preadjudication records of a juvenile are against the law. The judge was on this morning discussing this because of the release of juvenile records to the local tv station that they traced to Mitchell, the 13 year old in Arkansas. I was sort of waiting for this to happen as this has been discussed among some of us since the story broke on tv. Don't know if any other area has heard about this. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 17:44:05 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> > >> Hi Jackie, > >> > >> Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge > >Wright based > >> her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male > >employer > >> showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it > >does not > >> constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable > >tort. That > >> is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what > >an > >> outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. > >> > >> Do you agree? > >> Best, Terry > >> > > > >Hi Terry > > > >ROTF--agree to a silly statement like that. You must be kidding, > >right!! She read > >all the material and Paula's lawyers did not provide enough evidence. > >Why is it > >that if a judge doesn't render a decision favorable to what people's > >biases are, > >then he/she didn't do the job right. If it had gone the other way, > >these same > >people would be saying "what a great judge." But of course, I am > >still trying to > >figure out how he blocked the door with his arm across it and still > >manged to get > >his hands up her culottes to grab her?? All that acrobatic gyrations > >ole Bill was > >going through and she never moved?? But she passed a lie > >detector--LOL. > > > >jackief > > Hi Jackie, > > I read an interesting story in this morning's paper that made an > excellent poin about this case. Simply put, many people just do not know > the law with respect to sexual harassment and what is required to prove > it. In spite of the red herrings that disappointed people throw out, it > has nothing to do with an action that may or may not be considered an > outrage. Clearly, even if Judge Wright thought the actions, if conducted > as alleged, were an outrage, the case STILL would not have met the > minimum for sexual harassment. > > People should not be coming down on Judge Wright for following the law. > If they are not happy, they should work to get the law changed. > > 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 -- 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: L&I Annual Internet cleaning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:20:29 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> >>Actually I think that trait has been around a long time. It is >>incredible what some people will do simply to get positive feedback >or >>follow instructions from someone who is or has the appearance of >being an >>authority figure. >> > > >Kind of like Flowers-Jones-Lewinsky-( too numerous to enumerate) would >agree >to do anything that Slick might suggest...like do you want to guess >it? >Ron LOL...really, Ron I think you've become too obsessed with this Clinton fiasco. One might think you were actually jealous of the guy. LOL... 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: L&I Hi Jackie...Bill, Hi Bill...Jackie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Bill Huh?? Wow, you'll have to interpret this one for me. Sure your opinions count. Even when they are wrong. ROTF! Haven't seen you posting much, though. If you did perhaps there would be some notes addressed to you. And what, pray tell, is wrong with mutual admiration and why does it bother you so much? Hope you have a great weekend. Bill On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:25:26 -0800 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Has anyone else noticed that every post form one or the other is >directed to >the other? Don't the rest of our opinions count for either of you? >This is >not a dialogue, or a mutual admiration society :-) Ron _ 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
L&I Off topic
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I thought Sue and maybe others might like this. My daughter the nurse sent it. <> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Hi Jackie...Bill, Hi Bill...Jackie
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Has anyone else noticed that every post form one or the other is directed to the other? Don't the rest of our opinions count for either of you? This is not a dialogue, or a mutual admiration society :-) Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Annual Internet cleaning
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Actually I think that trait has been around a long time. It is >incredible what some people will do simply to get positive feedback or >follow instructions from someone who is or has the appearance of being an >authority figure. > Kind of like Flowers-Jones-Lewinsky-( too numerous to enumerate) would agree to do anything that Slick might suggest...like do you want to guess it? Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re: Thomas was polygraph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, LOL...you're on a roll today! This reminds me of a movie I just saw. Titled "The Big Lebowski". It is another hilarious Coen brothers movie. Your comment about a person behaving any way he wants reminded me of the John Goodman character in the movie, especially a scene where he loses it in a coffee shop and is warned that he would be asked to leave. Great fun! In fact, that entire character Goodman plays reminds me of..oh well, I probably shouldn't delve into it too far, if you know what I mean. :) Bill On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:49:57 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Terry > >I am truly impressed (Yawn) by your spouting of philosophical >arguments in defending >your position and your throwing up of smokescreens (ho, hum). I >especially like you >telling me my assumptions of why I post something. It seems I believe >that the >courts are the ultimate truth, from what you write. Oh well, believe >what you wish. > >TBO, I agree you can call anyone anything you want. And you are free >to suffer the >consequences if you should find yourself in a position in which you >foolishly feel >that is your right and no one can do anything about it. > >Now, I don't know about you but I have work to do and posts worth >reading. So I >guess I am getting bored "playing" with someone that seems to believe >the only >correct evidence is the evidence that support's one's beliefs. Of >course, so far >your evidence consists of a 1940s death penalty to support your claim >that we give >children the death penalty; an amicus brief in a case in which the >judges did not >buy into the arguments; a case that in no way resembles the case under >discussion; >and your argument that the evidence shows Thomas is a perjuror. So I >guess I will >not "play" around anymore with you. > >jackief > >jackief >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> Hi Jackie >> >> >> I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments >about the >> >> nature of truth when stating facts. >> > >> >Now this sentence is great--truth and facts in the same breath. >The fact is: >> >Thomas was not convicted of perjury therefore he can not be called >a >> perjuror >except by silly people who think because a word may be >similar it >> is the same >thing. >> >> The fact is Thomas can be called anything by any American. The >truth is >> what it is independent of what anybody says it is and no American is >banned >> from speaking truth or lies as they choose when not in violation of >legislation. >> >> What in the name of God makes you think a court is the repository of >> Ultimate Truth? It matters not a whit what a court finds as far as >the >> truth is concerned. If an effort is made to find the truth by >anyone or any >> group the results may be judged to approximate the truth by the >quality of >> that effort and the evidence capable of assessment. If a court >truly >> presents a rational case based on evidence we can hope it has found >the truth. >> >> Pray tell what manner of argument invalidates evidence about Thomas' >perjury >> but lets us believe the earth is round or Al Capone was a racketeer? > This >> should be a whole new field of philosophy. >> >> You passed the test. Your overhelming modesty is charming but you >need not >> even read the test to know the answers. It is the nature of a >priori >> knowledge. Congratulations. Des Cartes would be astonished at your >> brilliant addition to his singularity: "I am even if I don't think." >> >> >Your >> >belief and your right to say that you believe he is a perjuror is >fine. I >> hope you >> >don't call him a perjuror in the wrong place though or you might be >facing >> a little >> >problem. >> > >> >> I will admit we cannot fully know the >> >> earth is round, that Al Capone was a racketeer and that Clarence >Thomas is a >> >> perjurer. Sometimes close is good enough. >> > >> >I believe there is empirical evidence that the earth is more round >than >> flat and I >> >believe Capone was convicted of a crime and there are also I >believe facts >> that show >> >him to be a racketeer. Clarence Thomas does not fit into this >> category--there are >> >no facts to support this, only your belief based on the fact he >wouldn't >> take a lie >> >detector and Anita did. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Your modesty is enchanting but your flawless performance on the >test has to >> >> be acknowledged by your admission you read it >> > >> >LOL--I never said I read it, merely that I flunked it. : ). So >again you >> made a >> >subjective decision. >> > >> >> . We know this with Cartesian >> >> certainty because it is obvious you think despite your efforts to >obscure >> >> that fact. >> > >> >ROTF!! That is about as impressive as you know what. jackief >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L&I Annual Internet cleaning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, Actually I think that trait has been around a long time. It is incredible what some people will do simply to get positive feedback or follow instructions from someone who is or has the appearance of being an authority figure. Of course, having gone to a Catholic grade and high school, I may simply be sensitized to this trait. :) Bill On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:15:42 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Jeez, Bill > >The article I read is starting to sound more and more like it is >really on >the mark. The authors claim we are becoming mindless and simply don't >give >anything thought to things before we do them. > >jackief > >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >> >> HI Jackie, >> >> The place where I used to work had a PA system. A co-worker pulled >a >> prank that he thought would simply be greeted with chuckles. (This >was >> not on April 1, however) >> >> He dialed the PA system and announced: >> >> "Attention all employees. GTE has just informed us that they will >be >> cleaning out the phone lines at 9am this morning. A short burst of >> compressed air will be sent through the lines to blow out all the >> accumulated dust. To avoid getting dust on yourself or your desk >please >> remove the hand set from your phone and place it inside an inter >office >> envelope. Do this at 8:58am. You will be notified when it is safe >to >> replace your hand set." >> >> He made the announcement about 8:30am and then forgot about it. >Around >> 9:10am he walked through the word processing department and EVERY >one of >> the phones had the handset sitting there inside the envelope. >LOL...a >> quick survey that day showed that many others had fallen for the >prank >> also. I was feeling lucky that I was sitting in his office when he >made >> the announcement. >> >> Bill >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:37:00 -0600 Jackie Fellows ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> writes: >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > >> >Hi Kathy >> > >> >I got that message about 2 months ago, so I recognized it and >started >> >laughing as soon as I saw it. >> > >> >jackief >> >> >_ >> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com >> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > >-- >In the sociology room the children learn >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > >I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re: Thomas was polygraph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Jackie, It must be that Cartesian part of my brain causing flashes of epistemology. :) (Fill in anecdote about my cousin in the CIA here) Bill On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:13:34 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Oh Bill > >I didn't think of that, silly me. > >jackief > >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >> >> Hi Jackie, >> >> He made it up. :) >> >> Bill >> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:07:28 -0600 Jackie Fellows ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> writes: >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > >> >Hi Terry >> > >> >Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a >> >perjuror. I am really curious?? >> > >> >jackief >> > >> >-- >> >In the sociology room the children learn >> >that even dreams are colored by your perspective >> > >> >I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" >> > >> > >> > >> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues >> > >> >> >_ >> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com >> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > >-- >In the sociology room the children learn >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > >I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
L&I Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, Yeah, we have people getting injured and killed via gunshots down here and it always seems to be someone who would never touch the gun or who had gone through such an intensive training and safety course that they'd never have an accident. Then we have those brilliant people who don't lock up their guns and manage to get them stolen. There's a Catch 22 for you. How can you protect yourself with a gun if you have to keep it locked up? A senator from Illinois is presenting a bill that would create a law to punish gun owners whose guns are stolen and then used in a crime, or whose guns are involved in an accidental shooting. Of course, the NRA opposes this. Bill On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:22:12 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill > >The tornado at St Peter edged out any news on the 13 year old in our >wonderful paper. But, yesterday Tom (the one that was the police >chief in >Grand Meadow) and I talked to the county sheriff and it sounds like >the >child has not had an easy time. But, it still shouldn't have caused >him to >kill others. I do know that guns were left lying around the house >when he >lived up here and the mother was not worried as she said the kids knew >about guns and what they go do. She also said that they wouldn't >touch the >guns. > >jackief > >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >> >> Hi Jackie, >> >> I thought your phrasing was impeccable, as usual, and you are 100% >> correct in what you posted. :) >> >> The more I read about that 13 year old the more bizarre that case >gets. >> Looks to me that not only the kid, but his father and step-father >had a >> lot of problems. Too bad they can't see these things ahead of time >and >> intercede. Also, I think that kids need to be sensitized to the >fact >> that they should immediately report any comments from another kid >that >> they plan to kill or hurt someone. Times really change. When I was >a >> kid the worst that happened was a fist fight to settle differences. >> >> Bill >> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:23:33 -0600 Jackie Fellows ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> writes: >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > >> >Hi Bill >> > >> >I guess I did sort of phrase it wrong : ). Lucky some of you know >me >> >and can >> >fill in the gaps when I quickly write something. But I do know >there >> >are not >> >many I talk too would take a polygraph. >> > >> >There is sure a flurry of activity going on around here over the >> >Arkansas >> >thing. The 13 year old spent summers up here with his >grandparents. >> >My >> >colleague who appeared on tv has been swamped with calls wanting an >> >interview. He had CBS sitting in his driveway, CNN called, NBC, >> >Fox--really >> >something wild. >> > >> >jackief >> > >> >William J. Foristal wrote: >> > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 06:53:52 -0600 Jackie Fellows >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> writes: >> >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Hi Sue >> >> > >> >> >Thanks for ferreting out pertinent info. for all of us. I am >not >> >sure >> >> >I >> >> >read this right--my eyes might be biased , but it seems the >> >> >Supreme >> >> >court is not willing to accept the idea that the polygraph is >> >> >admissible. >> >> >Am I correct in this?? >> >> > >> >> >jackief >> >> >> >> Hi Jackie, >> >> >> >> Yes, you are correct. Although the court did not rule out >> >acceptance of >> >> lie detector tests in future cases that may be supported by more >> >> compelling evidence, they ruled that the evidence presented in >this >> >case >> >> was not sufficient to warrant approval. In other words, they did >> >not buy >> >> the amicus brief citing the 90% accuracy data. >> >> >> >> Some comments in the ruling: >> >> >> >> "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is >reliable." >> >> >> >> "To this day, the scientific community remains extremely >polarized >> >about >> >> the reliability of polygraph techniques. There is simply no way >to >> >know >> >> in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is >> >> accurate." >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >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 PROTE
Re: L&I Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 17:44:05 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> Hi Jackie, >> >> Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge >Wright based >> her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male >employer >> showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it >does not >> constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable >tort. That >> is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what >an >> outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. >> >> Do you agree? >> Best, Terry >> > >Hi Terry > >ROTF--agree to a silly statement like that. You must be kidding, >right!! She read >all the material and Paula's lawyers did not provide enough evidence. >Why is it >that if a judge doesn't render a decision favorable to what people's >biases are, >then he/she didn't do the job right. If it had gone the other way, >these same >people would be saying "what a great judge." But of course, I am >still trying to >figure out how he blocked the door with his arm across it and still >manged to get >his hands up her culottes to grab her?? All that acrobatic gyrations >ole Bill was >going through and she never moved?? But she passed a lie >detector--LOL. > >jackief Hi Jackie, I read an interesting story in this morning's paper that made an excellent poin about this case. Simply put, many people just do not know the law with respect to sexual harassment and what is required to prove it. In spite of the red herrings that disappointed people throw out, it has nothing to do with an action that may or may not be considered an outrage. Clearly, even if Judge Wright thought the actions, if conducted as alleged, were an outrage, the case STILL would not have met the minimum for sexual harassment. People should not be coming down on Judge Wright for following the law. If they are not happy, they should work to get the law changed. 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
L&I Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, Sometimes the air only SEEMS to smell better to people because they have gotten used to the stench. And, of course, the smell of ANY air not like their own tends to make the real smellers nervous. Bill On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:39:24 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Oh Terry' > >The case of the college student with a tape recorder is not even >parallel to >the material Judge Wright had to go by. She didn't have a tape >recording, so >could only go by allegations that were not supported in the documents >submitted >to the court. The courts are clogged enough without putting cases on >the >docket that do not measure up to the standards of the court. > >jackief > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> They don't elect many Democrats around here. One they did was a NY >State >> Representative. >> >> A junior college student went to his office looking for a job. The >> preliminary offers were not to her liking. She did make a second >trip and >> got a similar offer. Unfortunately for our fine statesman the girl >was >> wearing a recording device in her bra and Judge Wright, who has a >wonderful >> tolerance for some things, lives in Arkansas >> >> People around here found that the request for sexual favors was >outrageous, >> not just boorish, and our statesman lost his job among other things >despite >> all the >> heartrending appearances with wife and kids. >> >> The Republicans then captured another NY State House of >Representatives >> seat. Unfortunately for the VRWC it did not last and a woman >Democrat now >> represents the district. >> >> The air smells better around here. We don't think that sexual >attacks on >> women by employers are just naughty but not something really >serious. >> Others have a different sense of smell. >> 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 > _ 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: L&I Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: You have no understanding of the Arkansas law upon which this decsion was based. Judge Wright's decision has been praised by those who support it, but more impotantly it has been acknowledged as correct by those who understand the law. Bill On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:00:32 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >Hi Jackie, > >If you agree that Judge Wright's decision was correctly rendered, you >have >to agree with the premise. You can, of course, agree with the >decision and >damn the reasoning but that is entirely different. Judge Wright's >decision >has been praised rather than damned by those who support it. > >Judge Wright decided that conduct described by Paula Jones was not >outrageous. She did not decide whether it was true or not and >prevented any >such finding. > >Your arguments about the evidence of Clinton's conduct are beside the >point. >If Judge Wright's decision stands, no court will ever hear the >evidence >because it was only naughty but not an actionable tort. > > >>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> >>> Hi Jackie, >>> >>> Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge >Wright based >>> her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male >employer >>> showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it >does not >>> constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable >tort. That >>> is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what >an >>> outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that. >>> >>> Do you agree? >>> Best, Terry >>> >> >>Hi Terry >> >>ROTF--agree to a silly statement like that. You must be kidding, >right!! >She read >>all the material and Paula's lawyers did not provide enough evidence. > Why >is it >>that if a judge doesn't render a decision favorable to what people's >biases >are, >>then he/she didn't do the job right. If it had gone the other way, >these same >>people would be saying "what a great judge." But of course, I am >still >trying to >>figure out how he blocked the door with his arm across it and still >manged >to get >>his hands up her culottes to grab her?? All that acrobatic gyrations >ole >Bill was >>going through and she never moved?? But she passed a lie >detector--LOL. >> >>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 >> >> >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 > _ 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
L&I Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I believe that was the sound of another slam dunk I just heard. :) Bill On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:23:24 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Poor Terry > >I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision >reached by >Judge Wright. I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both >Republican and >Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal >beagles, Paula did >not have a case. Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was >already defined in >the law and she followed the law. > >Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the >forest for the >trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use >in making her >decision. The part that led to the decision was the failure to >provide evidence >that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect. There are >two parts to >the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards. The >act and the >consequences of the act. In this case, she did not meet the standards >set out in >law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act.Wright has to >follow the >legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you or >others decide >is the accurate decision. If you know anything about law then you >know that. In >this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which >she was correct >in doing. > >jackief > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Oh Jackie, >> >> Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She >did not >> decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description of >> Clinton's conduct. >> Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as >presumed >> true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not >"outrageous" >> >> If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had >to face >> removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same >supporters >> Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have planned >a >> bright future. >> 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 > _ 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
L&I Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Wrong again. On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:35:25 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >Hi Jackie, > >As long as you just make things up you can prove anything. > >Arkansas law specifies a single act of outrageous conduct as sexual >harassment. Damage to the plaintiff does not have to be proven in this >case >but is assumed. In order to dismiss the suit in its entirety Judge >Wright >had to find that the action as described by Jones was not outrageous. >This >she did. That is the law and the decision. > >>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>Poor Terry >> >>I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision >reached by >>Judge Wright. I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both >Republican and >>Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal >beagles, >Paula did >>not have a case. Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was >already >defined in >>the law and she followed the law. >> >>Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the >forest >for the >>trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use >in >making her >>decision. The part that led to the decision was the failure to >provide >evidence >>that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect. There >are two >parts to >>the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards. The >act >and the >>consequences of the act. In this case, she did not meet the >standards set >out in >>law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act.Wright has >to >follow the >>legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you >or >others decide >>is the accurate decision. If you know anything about law then you >know >that. In >>this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which >she was >correct >>in doing. >> >>jackief >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> Oh Jackie, >>> >>> Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She >did not >>> decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description >of >>> Clinton's conduct. >>> Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as >presumed >>> true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not >"outrageous" >>> >>> If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had >to face >>> removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same >supporters >>> Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have >planned a >>> bright future. >>> 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 >> >> >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 > _ 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: L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:12:08 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> Hi Jackie, >> >> You are 100% correct. Even Judge Stevens in his dissenting opinion >did >> not offer any statements about the validity of the lie detector >results. >> His concern was in denying a defendant the right to present all >evidence >> that a jury may deem to be exculpatory. >> >> NONE of the justices bought the rigged results of the study cited in >the >> amicus brief that suggested a lie detector test produced results >that >> were correct in excess of 90% of the time. In fact, not many people >> discussing this issue bought this information. >> >> Bill >> > >But Bill > >It is the study by Iacono and Rykken that is fraudulent, because it >did not >support the Honts' study that found 90%. . It is called "Hello, >Wall." > >jackief Hi Jackie, LOL...sometimes the only really suitable reply is "Well, duh!" 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
L&I BrainBenderz: Golfers & Liberals
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: -=Today's Puzzle: Brown, Clark, Jones and Smith are four substantial citizens who serve their community as architect, banker, doctor, and lawyer, though not necessarily respectively. Brown, who is more conservative than Jones but more liberal than Smith, is a better golfer than the men who are younger than he is and has a larger income than the men who are older than Clark. The banker, who earns more than the architect, is neither the youngest nor the oldest. The doctor, who is a poorer golfer than the lawyer, is less conservative than the architect. As might be expected, the oldest man is the most conservative and has the largest income, and the youngest man is the best golfer. -=Yesterday's Answer: Yes, Yes, Yes - The first to answer "Yes" must have been told a letter that occurred only once in the list. (H, R, P, D, or V) The second logician knew this, which eliminated the word TOE. Then the second logician knew what the word was if told T or E, or if told the second letter of PAD that occurred only once in the list: P or D. The third logician knew that the first was told H, R, P, D, or V, and that the second was told either T, E, P, or D. So the third knew what the word was if told O, but would not know if told A. Then rather than PAD or VAT, the letters spelled HOE. -- 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
L&I Re: LAW Jamez
"Steve Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Im not at a law school, Im doing a 2 year degree level course in Business & Information Technology as part of the business side Im doing Business Law as an option, so in reality im only touching little pieces Copyright, Patients, Contracts, Offer & Acceptance, Negligence, Common Law & Statute Law. No its not difficult as such I would say that to do it you'd have to be a little bit of a devil, very good at arguing your points (with anything) and basically be a bit of an arsehole Steve PS Jamez Im in the UK so its allot different. -Original Message- From: Jamez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 11:23 PM >Hey there Steve. I was just curious...which law school do you go to? > >ps: Is law school difficult? > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, As long as you just make things up you can prove anything. Arkansas law specifies a single act of outrageous conduct as sexual harassment. Damage to the plaintiff does not have to be proven in this case but is assumed. In order to dismiss the suit in its entirety Judge Wright had to find that the action as described by Jones was not outrageous. This she did. That is the law and the decision. >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Poor Terry > >I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision reached by >Judge Wright. I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both Republican and >Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal beagles, Paula did >not have a case. Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was already defined in >the law and she followed the law. > >Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the forest for the >trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use in making her >decision. The part that led to the decision was the failure to provide evidence >that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect. There are two parts to >the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards. The act and the >consequences of the act. In this case, she did not meet the standards set out in >law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act.Wright has to follow the >legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you or others decide >is the accurate decision. If you know anything about law then you know that. In >this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which she was correct >in doing. > >jackief > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Oh Jackie, >> >> Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She did not >> decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description of >> Clinton's conduct. >> Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as presumed >> true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not "outrageous" >> >> If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had to face >> removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same supporters >> Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have planned a >> bright future. >> 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 > > 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: L&I Re: Thomas was polygraph
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Terry I am truly impressed (Yawn) by your spouting of philosophical arguments in defending your position and your throwing up of smokescreens (ho, hum). I especially like you telling me my assumptions of why I post something. It seems I believe that the courts are the ultimate truth, from what you write. Oh well, believe what you wish. TBO, I agree you can call anyone anything you want. And you are free to suffer the consequences if you should find yourself in a position in which you foolishly feel that is your right and no one can do anything about it. Now, I don't know about you but I have work to do and posts worth reading. So I guess I am getting bored "playing" with someone that seems to believe the only correct evidence is the evidence that support's one's beliefs. Of course, so far your evidence consists of a 1940s death penalty to support your claim that we give children the death penalty; an amicus brief in a case in which the judges did not buy into the arguments; a case that in no way resembles the case under discussion; and your argument that the evidence shows Thomas is a perjuror. So I guess I will not "play" around anymore with you. jackief jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Hi Jackie > > >> I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments about the > >> nature of truth when stating facts. > > > >Now this sentence is great--truth and facts in the same breath. The fact is: > >Thomas was not convicted of perjury therefore he can not be called a > perjuror >except by silly people who think because a word may be similar it > is the same >thing. > > The fact is Thomas can be called anything by any American. The truth is > what it is independent of what anybody says it is and no American is banned > from speaking truth or lies as they choose when not in violation of legislation. > > What in the name of God makes you think a court is the repository of > Ultimate Truth? It matters not a whit what a court finds as far as the > truth is concerned. If an effort is made to find the truth by anyone or any > group the results may be judged to approximate the truth by the quality of > that effort and the evidence capable of assessment. If a court truly > presents a rational case based on evidence we can hope it has found the truth. > > Pray tell what manner of argument invalidates evidence about Thomas' perjury > but lets us believe the earth is round or Al Capone was a racketeer? This > should be a whole new field of philosophy. > > You passed the test. Your overhelming modesty is charming but you need not > even read the test to know the answers. It is the nature of a priori > knowledge. Congratulations. Des Cartes would be astonished at your > brilliant addition to his singularity: "I am even if I don't think." > > >Your > >belief and your right to say that you believe he is a perjuror is fine. I > hope you > >don't call him a perjuror in the wrong place though or you might be facing > a little > >problem. > > > >> I will admit we cannot fully know the > >> earth is round, that Al Capone was a racketeer and that Clarence Thomas is a > >> perjurer. Sometimes close is good enough. > > > >I believe there is empirical evidence that the earth is more round than > flat and I > >believe Capone was convicted of a crime and there are also I believe facts > that show > >him to be a racketeer. Clarence Thomas does not fit into this > category--there are > >no facts to support this, only your belief based on the fact he wouldn't > take a lie > >detector and Anita did. > > > >> > >> > >> Your modesty is enchanting but your flawless performance on the test has to > >> be acknowledged by your admission you read it > > > >LOL--I never said I read it, merely that I flunked it. : ). So again you > made a > >subjective decision. > > > >> . We know this with Cartesian > >> certainty because it is obvious you think despite your efforts to obscure > >> that fact. > > > >ROTF!! That is about as impressive as you know what. jackief > > > >> > >> > >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >Terry > >> > > >> >I really don't know where you are coming from--I said I believed--not > that he > >> >was--but that I believed was a liar. Nowhere did I acknowledge or say > he was a > >> >perjuror. Yes you are free to say any ole thing you want, but when you are > >> >discussing something to provide evidence for your view, you don't state as > >> a fact > >> >that the man was a perjuror. In a discussion like this, perjuror has a > whole > >> >different meaning. > >> > > >> >LOL--that is why I flunked your test--the decision on whether I passed or > >> not was > >> >yours to make--purely a subjective decision, I would say. But I believed I > >> flunked, > >> >therefore because I believed that was the truth, I am telling the truth > >> when I say I > >> >flunked. Sorry a score of -0. > >> > >
Re: L&I Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Poor Terry I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision reached by Judge Wright. I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both Republican and Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal beagles, Paula did not have a case. Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was already defined in the law and she followed the law. Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the forest for the trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use in making her decision. The part that led to the decision was the failure to provide evidence that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect. There are two parts to the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards. The act and the consequences of the act. In this case, she did not meet the standards set out in law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act.Wright has to follow the legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you or others decide is the accurate decision. If you know anything about law then you know that. In this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which she was correct in doing. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh Jackie, > > Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She did not > decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description of > Clinton's conduct. > Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as presumed > true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not "outrageous" > > If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had to face > removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same supporters > Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have planned a > bright future. > 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
L&I Michael Fay back in the news
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The man who gained international attention in 1994 when he was caned in Singapore for vandalizing cars is facing drug charges in Orange County, Florida. Michael Fay, now 22, was arrested after a deputy answering a complaint about loud music at an apartment near Winter Park found Fay and two of his friends inside surrounded by a cloud of smoke. The arresting officer says Fay -- formerly from Dayton, Ohio -- handed over a bag of marijuana that also contained what was described as ``red rock opium.'' Fay was released from jail Wednesday after posting $500 bond and being charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Four years ago, President Clinton and other U.S officials protested when Fay was publicly caned in Singapore after his conviction on criminal mischief charges for spray-painting graffiti on 18 cars. A jailer gave Fay four strokes with a half-inch rattan cane, leaving him with scars on his buttocks. Clinton called the punishment excessive. Back in the U.S. soon after the caning, Fay admitted himself to a Minnesota drug rehabilitation center for sniffing butane. His family blamed the drug abuse on his trying to get over the imprisonment and humiliation he experienced in Singapore. Fay moved to the Orlando area in 1995 to take a job at Universal Studios Florida, and attends classes at Valencia Community College. -- 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
L&I Abdela: Case update
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Fifteen-year-old Daphne Abdela has been sentenced to 3 1/3 to 10 years in jail for the slaying and gutting of a middle-age man in New York's Central Park last May. Abdela pleaded guilty last month to first-degree manslaughter in Manhattan state Supreme Court. Her lawyer said then that Abdela would not cooperate with prosecutors or testify against her boyfriend, Christopher Vasquez, who she blamed for the attack during police interviews. Abdela told police Vasquez was high on the hallucinogen LSD and flew into a jealous rage when 42-year-old Michael McMorrow put his arm around her on May 23, 1997, as the three of them were drinking in the park late at night. Prosecutors say 15-year-old Vasquez stabbed the older man 30 times in his neck, face and chest. The teens then allegedly pushed the corpse into the park's lake after slicing open the stomach so it would sink. Moments before hearing her fate today, she cried and told the packed courtroom, ``This is a hard mistake that I am paying dearly for, not only by this sentencing, but also with flashbacks, memories and my conscience.'' She added: ``It won't be easy waking up every day behind bars. Hopefully, it will make me a better person.'' Judge Michael Corriero replied: ``Apparently you have a grasp of the enormity of what you did. You must learn to take the energy that produces that anger to control it and tame it and live life for two people -- yourself and the life you took. You must learn to tame it twice as much and forgive twice as much.'' Abdela's parents sat stone-faced during the proceeding. McMorrrow's mother, sisters, brother and nephew were also present. -- 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
L&I BrainBenderz: Yes, Yes, Yes
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: -=Today's Puzzle: Here is a list of words: HOE OAR PAD TOE VAT 1) Each of three logicians was told one letter of a certain word, so that each logician knew only one of the letters and so that no two logicians knew the same letter. 2) The logicians were then told their three letters could be arranged to spell one of the words in the list above. 3) When each logician was asked in turn "Do you know which word the letters spell?", first one logician answered "Yes", then another logician answered "Yes", and then the remaining logician answered "Yes". Which word did the letters spell?* -=Yesterday's Answer: Three Fishermen - A is the Sororean; B is the Nororean & C is the Midrorean. -- 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
L&I Thursday's Jokes
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The Top 15 Differences if the Special Prosecutor were RINGO Starr 15> All charges dropped after grand jury concludes, "She loves you, and you know that can't be bad." 14> Courthouse overflowing with shrieking 50-something women with heavy eyeliner and cat glasses. 13> Finally, someone the President can share a bong with. 12> Years on the case and $40 million down the drain, and he still can't prove whether Paul is dead. 11> He gets by with a little help from his sleazeball scum-sucking ambulance-chasing lawyer friends. 10> Calling for order involves an elaborate "gavel solo." 9> If you play Linda Tripp's tapes backwards, you hear, "I buried Vince Foster." 8> Pete Best shows up on every Sunday morning talk show whining about how he could do a better job. 7> Nobody seems to want to listen to the secret recordings made by Yoko. 6> Hillary dismisses the accusations as part of a "vast Blue Meanie conspiracy." 5> Sexual harassment and adultery: Who cares? Playing Fleetwood Mac at Democratic convention: Impeach him! 4> Linda Tripp suddenly ceases to be the butt-ugliest person involved in the scandal. 3> Ringo Starr: "Ludwig" refers to brand of drums. Ken Starr: "Ludwig" refers to business trip to Berlin a few years ago, the memory of which causes frequent nightmares about his *own* past being investigated. 2> Giggles uncontrollably whenever he hears Kathleen Willey's last name. and the Number 1 Difference if the Special Prosecutor were RINGO Starr... 1> No difference whatsoever -- They're both trying to get the public to buy tapes that suck. -- V A R I A T I O N S O N M U R P H Y ' S L A W 1. The Law of Common Sense Never accept a drink from a urologist. 2. The Law of Reality Never get into fights with ugly people, they have nothing to lose. 3. The Law of Self Sacrifice When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last. 4. The Law of Volunteering If you dance with a grizzly bear, you had better let him lead. 5. The Law of Avoiding Oversell When putting cheese in a mousetrap, always leave room for the mouse. 6. The Law of Motivation Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster. 7. Boob's Law You always find something in the last place you look. 8. Weiler's Law Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. 9. Law of Probable Dispersal Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed. 10. Law of Volunteer Labour People are always available for work in the past tense. 11. Conway's Law In any organisation there is one person who knows what is going on. That person must be fired. 12. Iron Law of Distribution Them that has, gets. 13. Law of Cybernetic Entomology There is always one more bug. 14. Law of Drunkenness You can't fall off the floor. 15. Heller's Law The first myth of management is that it exists. 16. Osborne's Law Variables won't; constants aren't. 17. Main's Law For every action there is an equal and opposite government programme. 18. Weinberg's Second Law If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programmes, then the first woodpecker that came along would have destroyed civilisation. --- A Brooklyn lawyer named Ernie successfully defends a major crime lord from charges of dealing drugs, racketeering, murder, kidnapping, and selling arms. As he is leaving the courtroom, an indignant old woman grabs him by the arm. "Young man, where are your scruples? Isnt there anyone too low for you to defend?" "I dont know," Ernie says, "What have you done?" --- Two cannibals catch a victim, and agree to share. They start to "chow down" and the first turns to the second. "Hey, how you doing?" "Man, I'm having a ball!" "Slow down! You're eating too fast!" -- Twin brothers were named Joe and John, Joe was the owner of an old dilapidated boat. It happened that John's wife died the same day that Joe's boat sank. A few days later a kindly old lady met Joe on the street mistaking him for John, she said to him, "I'm sorry for your loss, you must feel terrible". Joe said, "Oh hell no, face is I'm sort of glad to be rid of her. She was a rotten old thing from the beginning, her bottom was all shrivelled up and she smelled like dead fish. She was always losing water, had a bad crack in the back and a pretty big hole in the front which got bigger every time I used her. She leaked like crazy and it was difficult to keep her upright. But what really finished her off was when four tough guys rented her for a good time. I warned them that she wasn't any good, but they all wanted to have a go with her anyhow. The damn fools all tried to get on her at the same time and it was just too much for the old girl, while they were trying to get into their various positions s
