Re: LI Re: Vince Foster murdered? A cruel hoax.
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Interesting how the facts get all twisted around, isn't it? It was really the bullet that they never found and they (RWW's), tried to make something out of. Talk about grasping for straws. Len At 11:24 AM 5/7/98 EDT, William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 14:16:11 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in spite of the results of four separate investigations concluding he committed suicide. Bill How do you shoot yourself and nobody ever finds the gun near the body, Bill ? HI Ron, Obviously you are not familiar with the real facts in this case. You need to read the conclusions of the four investigating groups that all determined he committed suicide. There is so much propaganda spewed forth by the American Spectator and other right wing fanatics that the facts have been distoted beyond recognition. The gun WAS found near the body, in a spot that corresponded with what one would expect considering the recoil and the physical reaction of the person shooting himself. BTW, guess who one of the investigators was whose group concluded that Foster's death was a suicide? Yep.your very own Kenneth Starr. :) 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ron's Opinion
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Mac Don't do anything rash like leaving this list. Ron's opinion is worth Zero to me and others so stick around. I, for one enjoy your input and rational thinking. Len At 12:13 AM 5/5/1998 -0400, you wrote: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Evenin', Ron thinks my recent absence from the list was welcomed by all. I would hate to think that was true. But since Ron has elevated himself to be your spokesperson ( ie Susan Carpenter McMillian) it must be true. ;) So, I'll take my smart ass elsewhere where discussion can be free from censorship from a member who is a hypocrite and has a very misguided view of the world around him. I will miss the friendships I have formed here and am truely saddened by the recent turn of events. Anyone who finds themselves looking for a vacation spot feel free to come to the Cape and pull up a beach chair and join me in my precious little piece of heaven. Hell, I'll even toss a lobsta' in da pot for ya! The next sound you here will be the door hitting me on the ass as I head off into the good night. ...Mac " Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich with food and wine in abundance, an obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board. The hospitality was as cold as the ices." ...Henry David Thoreau Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Wife wins $45 Million
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lets hear it for the Judge. It's about time they came to their senses and do the right thing for the wives. Len At 10:42 AM 4/27/1998 -0400, you wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A homemaker has won an equitable distribution award of $45 million, an amount that is believed to be the largest ever in New York State. In making the award, Justice Walter B. Tolub wrote that, through 33 years of marriage, the homemaker and her husband's "fortunes were inseparable." The decision will be published tomorrow. Justice Tolub concluded in Goldman v. Goldman, No. 313111/96, that the homemaker, Vira H. Goldman, was entitled to half the couple's assets, which total approximately $90 million. Ms. Goldman's husband, Robert I. Goldman is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Congress Finanical Corporation, a lending institution. Mr. Goldman's lawyer, Lawrence Pollack, of Midgal, Pollack, Rosenkrantz Sherman, said an appeal is likely. According to Norman S. Sheresky, who represented Ms. Goldman, it is common for courts to give a spouse a 50-percent share of a couple's assets when the value of their property is in the $10 million range. But there has been uncertainty in the matrimonial bar as to whether courts would award a 50-percent share for a large estate when that figure would generate far more income than necessary to maintain a homemaker's lifestyle, said Mr. Sheresky, of Sheresky Aronson Mayefesky. In Ms. Goldman's case, a 50-percent share would yield about $2.25 million in after-tax income, an amount far larger than she needed to live on, Mr. Sheresky said. Justice Tolub recognized that fact as well in ruling that an award of maintenance was unnecessary in light of "the sizeable equitable distribution award and its liquidity." Justice Tolub cited Ms. Goldman's substantial contributions as a homemaker to the marriage. She raised their child, who is now grown, without help, entertained without a full-time maid until 1986, and gave Mr. Goldman haircuts until they separated in 1996, he noted. Ms. Goldman also oversaw, in the manner of a general contractor, the renovation of the couple's Sutton Place townhouse as well as several investment properties on the East End of Long Island and in the Catskills. In sum, Justice Tolub wrote, "Ms. Goldman was involved with every phase of Mr. Goldman's existence." The major portion of the couple's assets was in stock that Mr. Goldman holds in Congress Financial Corporation, which has an after-tax value of $63.5 million, Justice Tolub said. The couple's other significant assets included the Sutton Square townhouse, with $3.1 million in equity; furniture and furnishings valued at $2.9 million; and bank accounts, stocks and other similar investments valued at $7.8 million. Justice Tolub also rejected Mr. Goldman's argument that the appreciation on about 25 percent of his stock holdings in Congress Financial should not be considered marital property because it was acquired prior to the couple's marriage. That argument, Justice Tolub, wrote "denigrates the true genius that is Robert Goldman." Corestates Bank which acquired a majority interest in Congress Financial in 1968 relied heavily on Mr. Goldman's expertise and went to substantial lengths to fashion a financial package to keep him with the company, Justice Tolub explained. Alan Mayefsky, of Sheresky Aronson, also represented Ms. Goldman. -- 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len At 04:58 PM 4/1/1998 EST, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now. The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:23 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages. She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27. Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling. Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starrs office says the deal was never finalized. For the past 10 weeks, Starrs grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about it. Lewinsky Evidence Sought Finally, Jones lawyers have filed an appeal with the 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case. In an attempt to have the decision thrown out, they insisted, the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience. To alleviate concerns that allowing Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starrs criminal investigation, Jones attorneys have offered to postpone the trial. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I doubt I'll be the first to bring this to your attention, but the Federal Judge was appointed by Bush. Len At 04:33 PM 4/1/1998 -0800, you wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether this is the correct decision or not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions list.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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Black Widow Executed
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:12 PM 3/30/1998 -0500, you wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So where's the outrage? Where was the press? Why no interviews on TV? This lady had the same criteria as Tucker did, oh except for one thing she wasn't as young or as pretty. Is that what a women needs to get those against the death penalty to notice her? I'm sure some will disagree with me strongly, but in this case the actions of the silent speak a lot louder than the words of those after the fact. Good question. And I don't disagree at all. They both got what they deserved. Len Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI help on modem
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bob The new standard, V.90, has been agreed to by all concerned. It's final approval is thought to be just a formality now. Several months ago, I bought a USR Sportster 56K X2 for someone else. It consistently connected with AOL X2 line at 50.6k. USRobotics (now 3COM) just released a new sportster model with v.90 and is own X2. I will me buying one of these this weekend for a friend and will do some informal testing on both x2 and 56K flex (V.90) mode. I'll let you know as soon I have some good info. USRobotics has consistently been rated tops by all the reliable sources that I'm aware of. TTYL Len At 09:17 AM 3/20/1998 -0800, you wrote: Robert Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: good morning all i'm thinking of upgrading my modem,but not sure which way to go.i now have a 28,800 bob,wa -- I don't suffer from stress.I'M a carrier.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nanny trial revisited ?
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dr.LDMF The lesser included charge in the nanny case came about cause the Judge threw out the jury's verdict. I think the attorney's for the nanny simply expected the jurors to think and act like lawyers. It's possible the attorneys were thinking far enough ahead and felt the judge would not allow a 2nd degree murder conviction stand if their thinking about the jury was wrong. We'll never know what was really going on in their minds. Len At 01:26 AM 3/15/1998 -0800, you wrote: "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue and group - there certainly does seem to be in common the issue whether a defendant is entitled to a jury charge on lesser-included charges.This way the sentence would have to be less. As I recall - check me out - the defense in the Nanny trial did not want this because they wanted absolute innocence or absolute guilt, using the strategy that absolute guilt woudln't happen. But if this is right, as I say, check me out -- then how did the lesser-included count come about in the Nanny trial; my memory is not recent on this, appreciate if you or group could post on this; do you think there's any generalization possible on these things, and can the absolute black/white defense ever work, or should attorneys argue the gray? C U soon, :) LDMF. Sue Hartigan wrote:--- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No 96-1693 Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit At issue in this death-penalty case is whether a person convicted of felony murder had a due process right to have jury instructions on lesser-included charges (second-degree murder or manslaughter) when, under Nebraska law, no lesser-included offenses for felony murder exist. On March 29, 1980 Randolph Reeves raped and stabbed two women to death in a Quaker meetinghouse in Lincoln, NE. A jury found him guilty of felony murder and a three judge panel sentenced him to death. The jury was told that the penalty for felony murder could be life imprisonmente or death. The court below held that under Beck v. Alabama (447 US 625 (1980)), the jury had to be instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence could warrant a conviction for those offenses. The State maintains that felony murder has never included lesser offenses in NE and since the three judge panel had discretion in sentencing, the Beck rule doesn't apply. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Windows 98 the rundown.
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joan You'd be a consumer version. Len At 05:03 PM 3/14/1998 -0500, you wrote: "Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Steve, If Win 98 will be the last version, would it be better to wait for one of the coming flavors of WinNT: Consumer, Workstation, Server? I know nothing about any of the three. Joan -- From: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LI Windows 98 the rundown. Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 8:48 AM Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Windows 98 is basically a slightly rewritten version of Win95(b), with IE4 and active desktop fitted as standard. It includes updated dial up networking. Converter from fat16 to fat32 for hard drives. Improved defrag utility which puts an applications files in a strip to improve loading times. Improved memory management for machines with over 64mb ram (95a dies not allocate memory properly after 32mb) this is why Microsoft stay is the optimum amount of memory for a 95 machine. Faster shutting down. Common driver model which will enable a device to use the same driver for Win98 it uses for Nt5. The jump from Win95 to Win98 is not as significant as that from 3.11 to 95, it is an evolutionary update to the O.S Win98 is however the last version there will be, after this there will be three flavors of WinNT, Consumer, Workstation, Server. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Microsoft hearings
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Dr. L.D. I've been following this for a while and find it very interesting. Hope they can finally cut Gates down to size on a couple of things. This Internet explorer he's trying to jam down everyone's throat is a peice of crap. Maybe he'll wake up soon. Len At 05:30 PM 3/3/1998 -0800, you wrote: "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear News.Com Dispatch Reader: The tech world doesn't get more dramatic than this. Today on Capitol Hill, Sen. Orrin Hatch grilled Bill Gates over whether Microsoft is a monopoly subject to antitrust laws. As industry rivals Scott McNealy and Jim Barksdale looked on, Gates fought back against the charges that have dogged his company since the start of the Justice Department's investigation. NEWS.COM's special coverage from Washington brings you the full story, including comments by McNealy and Barksdale, as well as live feeds from CNET Radio. http://www.news.com/SpecialFeatures/0%2C5%2C19637%2C00.html?nd Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
