LI Many promising cancer drugs in the pipeline
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many promising cancer drugs in the pipeline 04:37 p.m May 06, 1998 Eastern By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two drugs that work together to starve out tumors in mice may show great promise but are far from being the only new weapons being developed in the fight against cancer, researchers said Wednesday. More than 300 new therapies are currently being tested, ranging from drugs that directly target tumors, to vaccines that turn the body's defenses against tumors, to gene therapy that aims to stop cancer at the most basic level. The two compounds that drew such attention this week, angiostatin and endostatin, take an indirect route. Known as angiogenesis inhibitors, they starve tumors by stopping them from growing new blood vessels to feed themselves. Rockville, Maryland-based EntreMed is developing the drugs, which are at least a year away from clinical trials in humans. ``They need to make enough of this stuff,'' Dr. Ted Gansler of the American Cancer Society said in a telephone interview. ''Mice are a lot smaller than people. It doesn't take much material to cure a mouse.'' Several other companies are working on the same approach. Some, smarting from the huge publicity EntreMed has won, have been sending out ``me too'' announcements about their own drugs. For instance, Pennsylvania-based Magainin Pharmaceuticals Inc. has its compound, squalamine, in Phase I safety trials in human volunteers. Derived from shark tissue, squalamine is also an inhibitor of angiogenesis. La Jolla, California-based Agouron has started Phase II/III safety and efficacy trials of its compound AG3340, another drug that blocks blood vessel formation and which patients could take as a pill. Other companies include Boston Life Sciences, whose troponin I is derived from human cells, Techniclone Corp and Ilex Oncology Inc., whose ``tumor homing peptide'' is linked to the anti-cancer drug doxorubicin in a compound called ImTHP-dox, which the company says seeks out and destroys developing blood vessels in tumors. In Britain, the Cancer Research Campaign charity said it hoped to test combretastatin A4 on humans in November. In animals it has killed off up to 95 percent of solid tumor cells by starving them of their blood supply. A synthetic derivative of the extract of the African bush willow, combretastatin was developed by Bob Pettit of Arizona State University. It is licensed to Oxigene, a Swedish medical technology company. Then there are the vaccines. In Los Angeles the John Wayne Cancer
Re: LI Starr-Scaife
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is this man Starr really an Independent Council or could there be something more sinister going on. ...Mac Hi Mac, He is probably an Evil Evidence Planter (EEP) who forced Monica Lewinsky to visit the White House dozens of times to tempt President Clinton to betray his marriage vows but we are glad to know he says he manfully resisted. Clinton could prove he is innocent if he wasn't forced to defend rights of the office of the presidency by claiming executive privilege. That is really a noble sacrifice that everyone has to admire. Many of the charges you claim to be facts are like those coming out of the Arkansas Project funded by the new bete-noir of clintonistas. They are simply unproven. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Nobel laureate disputes cancer-cure quote in Times
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nobel laureate disputes cancer-cure quote in Times 02:37 p.m May 06, 1998 Eastern By Ransdell Pierson NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel laureate James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, is disputing a quote attributed to him in The New York Times predicting cancer would be cured within two years by two drugs featured in a Times story. The front-page article in the Sunday Times spurred an explosion of interest in biotech company EntreMed of Rockville, Md., and its two drugs, angiostatin and endostatin, helping boost its shares 500 percent on Monday. The two drugs are naturally occurring proteins that block growth of blood vessels that feed tumors. They were discovered by Dr. Judah Folkman, a cancer researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston, and licensed to EntreMed. In the Times article, written by Gina Kolata, Watson is quoted as saying, ``Judah is going to cure cancer in two years.'' The article added that Watson said Folkman would be remembered along with scientists like Charles Darwin as someone who permanently altered civilization. Some Wall Street analysts said the bold statement by Watson, a co-discoverer of the ``double helix'' structure of DNA, was a key factor that inspired the EntreMed rally. Watson, director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in on New York state's Long Island has submitted a letter to the editor of the newspaper challenging the cancer-cure quote, according to laboratory spokesman Wendy Goldstein. Times spokeswoman Lisa Carparelli told Reuters she was unable to immediately comment on Watson's letter but would do so later in the day. EntreMed officials could not be reached for comment. Goldstein provided Reuters a copy of Watson's letter, which she said would be submitted to The New York Times on Wednesday for publication. In the three-paragraph letter dated May 4, Watson states, ''In the May 3 New York Times article, Ms. Kolata reported that I predicted that Judah Folkman would cure cancer in two years. My recollection of the conversation to which she refers, however, is quite different.'' The letter continues, ``What I told Ms. Kolata, at a dinner party six weeks ago, was that endostatin should be in NCI (National Cancer Institute) clinical trials by the end of this year, and that we would know about one year after that whether they (sic) were effective.'' In the letter, Watson noted that the two drugs have not yet been tested in humans. The drugs have only been tested in mice, a point that the medical community and drug industry analysts have underscored in recent days as a reason for caution. Many drugs that work in mice have later failed to have the same beneficial effects in humans, according to industry analysts and scientists. Goldstein said Watson was in California and could not be reached to comment. ``Dr. Watson feels very strongly about setting the record straight that he did not make such a statement. He is contesting that quote primarily because he feels a statement as bold as his coming from him has offered what could very well prove to be false hope to a great many people'' with cancer, Goldstein said. Carl Gordon, a drug analyst for OrbiMed Advisors in New York, said he believed Watson's quote and enthusiastic quotes in the same article about the two drugs by National Cancer Institute director Dr. Richard Klausner were the biggest drivers of EntreMed's rally on Monday. EntreMed's stock jumped from about $12 on Friday to trade in the low $50 range Monday, after briefly hitting $85. It lost $10.125 to $33 in heavy trading Wednesday afternoon on the Nasdaq market. Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication and redistribution of Reuters content is
Re: LI Terry-National Cancer research
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I think I already posted that one. I'm just gathering information to see if this is for real or not, because I do have a vested interest in finding out. :) I do appreciate your help. Sue Hi Sue, I guess you would have revealed your interest if you had wanted to. I hope you aren't talking about having cancer yourself. I have talked to many people with cancer about the amazing progress that has been made and the many people who are surviving apparently cancer-free today that would have simply died years ago. One of my sisters was given a 40% chance of survival of throat cancer some eight years ago. That was probably most optimistic but she never read the playbook. She was lucky to have looked elsewhere when she was told that she would lose her ability to speak. Even people with disseminated cancers have responded to some treatment. But a drug that kills cancer in mice is hardly reason for wild optimism. It is little more meaningful than the drugs that kill in testtubes. It seems to me the first thing to tell people with cancer is the truth. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Cops Say Principal, Pupil Had Sex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Tammy Linkenhoker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not even safe to send your children to school anymore. They either get seduced or shot at. The world is getting crazier all the time. I just joined and look forward to all your messages. Hi Tammy, Welcome to the list. Remember there are hundreds of millions of people in this country. Single bizarre incidents are broadcast nationwide. At least a principal seducing students makes news and is condemned. That guns in schools is no longer news is a bit chilling. We look forward to what you have to say. Most everybody here has been heard from over and over yawn. :-} Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Puffing Research
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NEW YORK, May 3 (Reuters) - Government scientists are excited about
progress with tests on two cancer drugs that are eradicating any type of
cancer in mice, the New York Times reported on Sunday.
["Government scientists," which Mac naturally confuses with "leaders in this
field," seem to have been able to maintain their excitement for a very long
time over this creeping breakthrough.
A careful reader might have noted the following item at the end of the
story:]
Several companies are also working to develop the drugs, and both have been
reported about extensively...
[One of those companies seems further along in submitting a New Drug
Application - specifically for lung cancer. Unfortunately for them they do
not have the flaks that EntreMed (and Bristol Meyers) have.]
[Making old news new - note the dates:]
Endostatin, Newly Discovered Angiogenic Inhibitor Licensed
ROCKVILLE, Md.Dec. 5, 1996 -- EntreMed, Inc., announced today that it
licensed the worldwide rights to the newly discovered angiogenesis
inhibitor, Endostatin(TM), from Children's Hospital, a teaching affiliate of
the Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA. EntreMed acquired these rights
through an exclusive sponsored research agreement with Children's Hospital
that supports the angiogenesis research of Dr. Judah Folkman and Resources
his team of scientists.
{-]
Antiangiogenic drugs have the potential to treat cancer as well as a variety of
other angiogenic diseases such as blindness and arthritis...
[Too bad they couldn't be working a bit harder on those illnesses with the
new miracle drug but I guess one thing at a time.]
At a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology cancer research conference
sponsored by the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Dr. Folkman
announced that the combination of Endostatin(TM) and Angiostatin(TM), when
used in preclinical studies to treat solid tumors for which there is no
effective chemotherapy, prevented the reoccurrence of the tumors even months
after cessation of the combined treatment. These findings from Drs. Michael
O'Reilly and Judah Folkman, along with their research team, were recently
cited in The Boston Globe (October 23, 1996), The Economist (November 16,
1996), and U.S. News World Report (December 9, 1996).
[Think maybe those other clowns were not colorful enough in their blurbs?]
[-]
EntreMed Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. John W.
Holaday: "...we are extending our significant efforts to accelerate the
availability of angiogenesis products for the treatment of cancer,
blindness, and other diseases that depend on new blood vessel growth."
[Damn. Arthritis just became "other diseases." But at least there is
better hope for the vision challenged.]
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WASHINGTON--The scientific process has given birth to many medical miracles over the years. But sometimes it can be a cruel parent. As a result of a New York Times story Sunday trumpeting news that two chemicals discovered by a Boston researcher can cure cancer in mice, oncologists across the country have been overwhelmed by patients seeking this remarkable new therapy. [-] Scientists themselves question the process. "It's really too bad that we make these sorts of announcements," McGinnis said. "It's great for the public in general, great for the stock market--but for the cancer patient with only six months to live, it's unbelievably cruel." Cimons reported from Washington, Getlin from New York and Maugh from Los Angeles. Gee whiz. Don't these lying, ignorant idiots know like Mac and Bill that "leaders in this field" have found that we have a breakthrough? * INVESTOR FRENZY: Techniclone stock surged on its report of new drug findings. D2 Los Angeles Times Hmm savvy stock investors couldn't be wrong could they? [extractinons from the article] In New York, several publishing houses confirmed Tuesday that they had received copies of a book proposal about the alleged cancer cure from John Brockman, an agent representing Gina Kolata, who wrote Sunday's story. "I don't have a problem with it," said the publishing official. "But [some people might] in this day of public wailing over media ethics." News organizations generally try to avoid such situations to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Critics charge that reporters cannot function as honest brokers of information on a story when they have simultaneously contracted to write a book about their sources. Seems to have a bad smell to me. Guess not hereabouts. Thanks, Sue. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Different Ways of Looking At Things
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From a press release: Dr. Folkman, a pioneer and leader in the field of angiogenesis research for more than twenty-five years, From LA Times as quoted by Sue: Folkman reasoned that drugs that blocked the production of these angiogenesis factors might prevent tumors from growing larger. But it took him more than 25 years to persuade the cancer community that his concept would work. [Some ignorant, lying fools aren't even convinced yet.] Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: It didn't say the thing is a hoax. That's the way I read it. What I basically got out of the story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had more definative answers before telling the public. But those "definitive answers" are the problem. And the huge promotion. What works in the test tube and in the field does not always translate to the real world. Maybe I should say often. I was not the only one who saw people reading "cancer cure" without paying attention to the fine print. This thing has been reported many times without all the hoopla and stock market frenzy. I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. It did the same for a few investors too. I also don't think that the news should have been released until there was something definative to the idea of a cure. They might have mentioned that the required human protein hasn't even been developed yet. But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it a 'cold fussion' hoax. I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. Sue Heck, Sue, we have had huge breakthroughs and many new and more effective drugs are in human trials today. Many untried, unproven ideas may do even better but hyping one to sell a book or promote a stock may not be the greatest thing. A father called Dr. Dean Edell. His twin infant doctors both had cancerous brain tumors. He asked the good doctor whether he should take the girls to a doctor who is in trouble with the law for promoting a cure for brain cancers. Dr. Edell said something to the effect that he might as well, there is no one else promising anything. Perhaps someone can remember this doctor who was profiled on "60 Minutes" or some similar show? He has great credentials but his technology is unproven and his cost seems a wee bit exorbitant. In reality he is a fraud like so many others. The basic idea may even have some promise. If you want some real goofy clowns you could look into the Duesberg clique which features not one but two Nobel laureates. They think HIV does not cause AIDS. One mental giant, a dentist, went on television in Spain and in personal appearances with a demonstration where he punctured himself with a needle that had just punctured the arm of an AIDS patient. I tried without success to find the cause of his early demise. It was not released to the press. The people involved with the "NY Times" article were involved in some unseemly hucksterism IMO. I am glad there is a backlash. Bet they don't have nearly the courage of their convictions like the dentist above. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, I have no quarrel with you. I do with your semantics but that is a small point. You do not make personal attacks like Mac and Bill when you have no logic or reason to back you up. I don't think you would call anyone a liar like they have even when you know someone is lying. :-} I would just note that there is no drug - repeat no drug - that has been developed yet. Presumably the human protein required can be developed but it may not be. There is no guarantee at this point that there will ever be any human trials should this drug ever be developed. And naturally there is no guarantee that it will work for any patient. There are many experimental drugs now available for those accepted in clinical trials. Research is being held back for lack of appropriate subjects. But the drug is a miracle cure for experimental lab rats. :-} Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: This is the way I see it. These scientists think that they may have found a way to prevent cancer from growing and in the end may even kill it. This has worked in their lab mice, and they "think" that it may work in human beings. But it has not been tried yet in humans and won't until at least the end of the year, at which time it will be tested in the people who have inoperable cancers and no other way of a cure. But the press got a hold of this story and when they printed it either left off the fact that it won't be tested in humans for a while or put it at the very end of the story. In the meantime people who now have cancer and are dying or have a loved one dying read this story, and in their excitement either don't read the whole thing or they misinterpret the way it is written. None of *my* scenario says that the actual test and conclusions that the scientists have come up with are a hoax, but the way that it was reported was very misleading. This is just my scenario, and the way I believe it happened. I could be wrong, but I have seen this happen before and it wouldn't surprise me if it was the way that it happened. Sue Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: It didn't say the thing is a hoax. That's the way I read it. What I basically got out of the story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had more definative answers before telling the public. But those "definitive answers" are the problem. And the huge promotion. What works in the test tube and in the field does not always translate to the real world. Maybe I should say often. I was not the only one who saw people reading "cancer cure" without paying attention to the fine print. This thing has been reported many times without all the hoopla and stock market frenzy. I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. It did the same for a few investors too. I also don't think that the news should have been released until there was something definative to the idea of a cure. They might have mentioned that the required human protein hasn't even been developed yet. But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it a 'cold fussion' hoax. I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. Sue Heck, Sue, we have had huge breakthroughs and many new and more effective drugs are in human trials today. Many untried, unproven ideas may do even better but hyping one to sell a book or promote a stock may not be the greatest thing. A father called Dr. Dean Edell. His twin infant doctors both had cancerous brain tumors. He asked the good doctor whether he should take the girls to a doctor who is in trouble with the law for promoting a cure for brain cancers. Dr. Edell said something to the effect that he might as well, there is no one else promising anything. Perhaps someone can remember this doctor who was profiled on "60 Minutes" or some similar show? He has great credentials but his technology is unproven and his cost seems a wee bit exorbitant. In reality he is a fraud like so many others. The basic idea may even have some promise. If you want some real goofy clowns you could look into the Duesberg clique which features not one but two Nobel laureates. They think HIV does not cause AIDS. One mental giant, a dentist, went on television in Spain and in personal appearances with a demonstration where he punctured himself with a needle that had just punctured the arm of an AIDS patient. I tried without success to find the cause of his early demise. It was not released to the press. The people involved with the "NY Times" article were involved in some unseemly hucksterism IMO. I am glad there is a backlash. Bet they don't have nearly the courage of their convictions like the dentist above. Best, Terry -- Two rules in
Re: LI Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, The report you printed said it came from the National Cancer Institute. As I mentioned I was careless in not noticing that the American Cancer Society was used in the report. The names seemed to be used interchangeably in the article when I reread it. You yourself mentioned the article came from the NCI in one post. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I am only familiar with the American Cancer Society. I don't know anything about the National one. I'm sorry. The address at the end of this post, after yours, is for the American Cancer Society. Sue Hi Terry: Yes the American Cancer Society did say something. Here is a copy of my post from yesterday. Sue I had read your report, Sue, and did not separate American Cancer Society from National Cancer Institute. I was going to look up NCI to see what it is. Can you tell me if is just an arm of the American Cancer Society or what? http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ron's Opinion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc, DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Honestly, sometimes I think you guys deserve each other! It makes me want to say, "All three of you, go to your room!" or something. The cancer "cure" is neither a cure nor a hoax. It is simply news of a new drug that has worked in one species and may work in another. No it's not. A huge hype of old news is not "simply news." When the stock of a small very speculative developer of the drug goes up like a roman candle on the news and even drags a blue chip like Bristol-Meyer in its wake, when a sensational weekend story in the "NY Times" about a long-term rd program becomes breaking news that creates television specials, this ain't "simply news." Testing of that "may" will not take place for awhile. That's all there is to that. Now, can we get back to facts and stop fiddling with personalities, please? Doc (who's much too old to waste time on flame wars) You mean you won't help decide who is the biggest liar? Maybe I can help you out. :-} I spent over 20 years in RD. I think I know something about hype of technology. If Mac and Bill think I am lying again so be it. That was actually my job. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI RD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon, Were you in RD for 20yrs. or a liar for 20 yrs.? ;) Often the same thing, Mac. Anybody involved in RD can tell you about the fights over funding. Seriously now.. what type of RD were you involved in? I was a technical program manager for Rome Air Development Center, which was one of the main Air Force research laboratories. Our particular franchise was the development of digital cartographic and geodetic data for automated guidance systems. A spinoff to civilian use that people here are likely familiar with is the geopositioning satellite data. Also, what convinces you that this is a hoax and not what some of the leading RD people in the field are reporting it as...A breakthrough in research and a possible route towards a cure for cancer. The hype vastly exaggerates a milestone that may indeed prove fruitful in the future. It far too early to talk about a cure. Responsible researchers have indeed noted that but the sensationalism of the press accounts drowns out the cautions. You seem to blow them off as charlatans so easy when the facts that have come out clearly point to something that is truely a major step towards a long sought after solution. Mac, you are the one who is slinging around words like charlatan and stupid. The "major step" you see appears to me a small milestone on a decades-long process that may or may not prove successful in the long run. This is not some quack with a lab in her basement or some witch doctor from the rainforest. Again you are the one using words like quack and witch doctor for the researchers. I didn't. Hucksterism of serious research may not always be the best way to inform the public. Publication in scientific journals I can assure you will be considerably more circumspect. You may believe in your heart that this is a hoax but the facts are pointing in the opposite direction. ...Mac Perhaps you will share with us your experience, knowledge or informed opinion that leads you to the conclusion that a breakthrough has been achieved. I recall many, e.g. interferon, monoclonal antibodies, cancer vaccines, applications of light and even heat treatment. Numerous research efforts are continuing on these and many others. Great progress has been made in curing leukemia and lymphomas (Ron may reasonably object to saying "cure" for a disease that may be only held in remission for even a lifetime) and people are living much longer with cancers of various kinds because of advances. But progress usually comes in small increments with research indicated in many directions IMO. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI It is not a hoax--American Cancer Society Report
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry: Just agree that the hype of this cure of the day for cancer, is not a "cruel hoax". It is nothing really new, it is untested in humans, it is years away from benefiting those who presently have cancer, but it can not be defined as a cruel hoax (something intended to deceive or defraud). It's a semantical difference, Ron. It is not the same as the "Saranga Ray." John Kennedy saw a Joe Pyne show where Saranga was complaining that his breakthrough technology was stolen by the Air Force. Now when the Commander gets a poison pen letter from the President of the United States wanting to know why we (it was long before my time but my partner was the engineer who got to deal with it) were stealing some poor guy's invention that could see incoming enemy missiles through all obstructions, well I will tell you... :-} Damn I wished I hadn't missed that. Bob probably was more cautious in his reply to that than I am wont to be. I never got beyond telling would-be contractors that they were bullshitting us. Fortunately for the Air Force they had lawyers to clean up and obfuscate my language. I am fully willing to admit I never was able to distinguish the used car salesman's "puffing" and plain old lying. Your choice of terms was erroneous, but certainly did not warrant the personal vilification you received. Ron Not to worry. My wife villifies MO all the time. vbg I think we are a very long way from an overall cure. It takes some sophisticated reading to understand that there is no grand breakthrough IMO. Anyone can apply their own definitions. I explained my objections to the press reports as best I was able. Can we say some people didn't get past my headline? Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI RD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I understand what you are saying. But sometimes a breakthrough, a big breakthrough can happen. One such thing that I can remember is the Polio vaccine. Big breakthroughs are usually the result of a lot of smaller ones. Oh sure, Sue. There are serendipitous findings and pure inspiration but what is being described is one milestone in a lengthy research program. The importance of the experimental results is being vastly overblown IMO. Of course there is still more research and development to be done on this, and it will be done. Understand it is yet an unproven technology. Managing to cause remission of tumors in identical research mice is a far cry from doing the same in humans. It has all been done before but perhaps - perhaps - not with the same success ratio. But at least there is something, which is a heck of a lot more than we had. Are you certain? And there is hope that something may come of it. Certainly there is that. If not, then it could be a start to finding something else. Sue True. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI RD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Often the same thing, Mac. Anybody involved in RD can tell you about the fights over funding. Only so many tax dollars to go around. I was a technical program manager for Rome Air Development Center, which was one of the main Air Force research laboratories. Our particular franchise was the development of digital cartographic and geodetic data for automated guidance systems. A spinoff to civilian use that people here are likely familiar with is the geopositioning satellite data. I worked with NavSat and Sins while serving in the Navy on board a nuclear sub. The hype vastly exaggerates a milestone that may indeed prove fruitful in the future. It far too early to talk about a cure. Responsible researchers have indeed noted that but the sensationalism of the press accounts drowns out the cautions. Exactly the point. The press made leaps that the researches didn't. The media put their spin on the story but in no way does that point towards a hoax. So the reporters tell a different story than the results of a test would support and you see no problem? That is the problem. The finding's were reported and to me they show promise. Promise of what? Curing mice? The dump is littered with drugs that showed early promise of doing all sorts of things. Apparently we know now we can cause up to 98% remission of tumors of specially-bred mice with certain tumors. As far as I can see that is all we know for sure. Do you believe that the doctor has fudged the results to gain more funding? There are cases of fraud in science but I have made no charges. It is you who know people are stupid and ignorant and lying. I have to have better evidence. Mac, you are the one who is slinging around words like charlatan and stupid. The "major step" you see appears to me a small milestone on a decades-long process that may or may not prove successful in the long run. Stupid I'm not. I'm asking you a legitimate question. If you can't answer it then say so. As far as I know I answered every question posed to the best of my ability. I am not alone in looking at this as a major breakthrough. You may see it as a small step But the leaders in this field offer a different opinion. The "leaders in this field?" Could you please tell me how you determined that all these "leaders in this field" have determined that there is a major breakthrough as shown by this set of test results? I don't have the information on "leaders in this field." I don't have a comprehensive survey of what they think and how they compare the status of these drugs to others in research. I don't think your qualifications nullify their opinion as easy as you believe. Well yes I can see that as long as you find I am stupid and ignorant and lying and whatever without knowing anything at all about me that you might not think much of anything I write. Again you are the one using words like quack and witch doctor for the researchers. I didn't. Hucksterism of serious research may not always be the best way to inform the public. Publication in scientific journals I can assure you will be considerably more circumspect. I was making an analogy. It's obvious that you cannot discuss this issue intelligently.you have made some pretty strong statements that you can't back up. you have done this many times before and my earlier post about you have just been proven by you yourself. How's the taste of shoe leather? Beats me. You may believe in your heart that this is a hoax but the facts are pointing in the opposite direction. ...Mac Perhaps you will share with us your experience, knowledge or informed opinion that leads you to the conclusion that a breakthrough has been achieved. I recall many, e.g. interferon, monoclonal antibodies, cancer vaccines, applications of light and even heat treatment. Numerous research efforts are continuing on these and many others. From the reports I've seen the combination of the two drugs used together were successful. From what I remember this was not done before or something to that effect. What has not been done before? Remission of tumors has been accomplished by other drugs. I have personel knowledge of the research and use of interferon in clinical studies and the use of it in combating Hepatitis and MS. The success ratio is slowly improving in both these instances. ...Mac In real live people incidentally other drugs have caused complete remission of turmors. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI RD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi all :) I have been watching this about the breakthrough, I am hoping with all my might that it does prove useful to humans, you will see me dancing in the streets if it is :) Both of us, Kathy, both of us. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI A Very Cruel Hoax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems to me the doctors on this list might have something to say. The purported cancer cure ain't. Not yet anyway. Testing can last for decades. "Cures" that can cause shrinkage of tumors and even in some cases disappearance for a time are a dime a dozen. The Wall Street Journal seemed to have a cancer cure a month when I read it daily. There are huge advances in treating cancer. I started going with my wife when was working in a hospital (as a file clerk) which was a leader in the research on leukemia - which was then a death sentence. But I can only imagine how the doctors are being swamped with demands for the new miraculous cure. It is very sad IMO. I remember the waiting rooms of the hospital in Portland where hopeful people would wait all day and be sent home at quitting time to perhaps try the next day. Their chances were not much better than making a trip to a faith healer at the time. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Did Simpson have help in cover-up?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks Terry I did not recognize the name at all, especially in connection with latent homosexuality as a factor in spousal abuse. No doubt the mention of homosexuality triggered a heated response and mindless piling on. I am dubious myself about "latent homosexuality" being a factor in spousal abuse - whatever the hell it is. I challenge most anybody to even define what homosexuality is. Up to 50% of males have been said to have had homosexual experiences. How the hell does one distinguish? Count? I remember now that you and Yvonne put the name in context. But, wasn't he going to address the issues that Lenore Waller was going to mention as being the reasons she felt OJ didn't fit the profile?? In our usual ceremonial rituals of opposing adversaries in trials Dutton was advertised as the antidote to Lenore Walker's whoring of herself out to the Simpson defense. God, I wished in my own sadistic dreams Lenore Walker would face cross-examination on her thesis. Walker's own formulation was self-refuting. The reality is that Dutton was best able to demolish Dershowitz's sophomoric aphorism that only a tiny proportion of abusers kill their spouses. The lumping of all "abusers" together should be an obvious fallacy to those with the slightest acquaintance with statistics. Dutton had made a study of those who actually killed a spouse in order to project the profile of a likely killer. This old brain is trying to remember : ). I confess I really had not heard that latent homosexuality was ever a part of the profile of a domestic abuser, so was surprised by that one. My guess - underline guess - is that what Dutton is talking about is really feelings of inadequacy. It is underlined by the inability of a killer like Simpson to have social intercourse with females rather than a distinct characteristic. From my own experience male homosexuals as a group seem to be particular attracted to females as social friends because of the lack of a threat. I think it is the precise opposite with lesbians/ But, thanks for letting me know who Dutton is--in fairness, will have to see if he says anything different than what my references outline. jackief Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI HEADS UP: Tim Russert Destroys Dan Burton on Meet The Press
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anybody with delayed broadcast might be interested in the demolition of Burton by Tim Russert over the Hubbel tapes. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Did Simpson have help in cover-up?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Yvonne " [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reasonably speaking, it's not the experience that defines one's sexual orientation. Wouldn't you say that it's one's sexual attraction? Well sure, Yvonne, that seems reasonable - assuming it is completely consensual of course. I suppose one can try to define hedonistic impulses that are separate from sexual attraction or even overcome repulsion. (That seems pretty much true of sex in general.) But I will be damned if I can see just how you can do it. Obviously there is attraction as well that is not sexual at all - despite Freud. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI HEADS UP: Tim Russert Destroys Dan Burton on Meet The Press
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anybody with delayed broadcast might be interested in the demolition of Burton by Tim Russert over the Hubbel tapes. Best, Terry Mornin' Terry, I watched that this morning. It proved to me that Burton is the "scumbag" and should be tossed from his chairmanship and perhaps from the the Senate itself. A small correction, Mac. Burton is a representative. Al D'Amato (God help us) is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That clown did a reasonably responsible job (so help me) as did Fred Thompson on campaign finance scandals. People fell asleep and everything was abandoned for lack of interest. I notice even C-SPAN was attracted back by the sexy stuff coming out of Burton's committee. Burton is well-known as a kook. Republicans really know how to pick 'em. ...How can anyone expect to be treated justly and fairly under the law when some of our most powerful lawmakers are shreading the law and missleading the people in their own personel attack on the highest office in the land. Anything that Clinton may or may not have done doesn't come close to the misdeeds of Burton and Gingrich. ...Mac My crook is better than your crooks? What kind of philosophy is that? Sorry, Mac, Clinton is vastly more powerful than the sleazy Gingrich and kooky Burton, independent of the plain fact the most serious charges against Gingrich and Burton hardly measure up to those against Clinton. We may have helped the Chinese improve their ability to deliver nuclear weapons with ICBM's in exchange for campaign donations. The Chinese are said to be helping out the ayatollahs in Iran in turn with their budding nuclear warfare program. It is reported Kazakhstan sold Iran four nuclear bombs. Think anything Gingrich and Burton can do will top that? Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Profile of abuser was Re: LI Did Simpson have help in cover-up?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-05-03 16:17:47 EDT, you write: As far as my own experience, my circle of friends includes both homosexuals, lesbians and heterosexuals and I haven't noticed any differences based on their sexual orientation. To me, homophobia produces so many of these myths that I wonder how some would explain any problem if they didn't have a scapegoat--others with a different sexual orientation than their own. jackief That's an easy one. They'd use a race other than their own, a language other than their own, or in desperation a gender other than their own. Doc Uh huh. Try this one, people: http://cybertowers.com/selfhelp/articles/glb/glbtphobia.html Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual arousal Questions Whether It Is Latent Homosexuality Or A Response to Anxiety Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia --the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory. --- So let's see: homophobes hate homosexuals because they are them. Obviously we have the example of J. Edgar Hoover, who is still awful hard to picture in a party dress. (Latent homosexuals BTW to the best of my understanding are not unacknowledged homosexuals but repressed homosexuals which is vastly different.) I have known many male homosexuals too, Jackie, though no admitted lesbians. If you compare Rock Hudson to Truman Capote most were no more obviously homosexual than Rock Hudson but some quite obviously were in Capote's mold. Surely no one would deny that that there are many such people. One I met was a hermaphrodite (no, I never checked - I was willing to take it on faith) which should explode the nonsense that genetics is not involved. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Did Simpson have help in cover-up?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Donald Dutton is a Canadian psychologist. From an old press clipping: The Families v. O.J. Simpson Judge Mulls Domestic Violence Profiling SANTA MONICA, Nov. 7 (Evening) -- Outside the presence of the jury, the plaintiffs Thursday afternoon in the O.J. Simpson civil trial argued that they should be allowed to put on witnesses to offer expert testimony on the profile of a person that would commit a domestic homicide. [-] Earlier in the afternoon Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, and Donald Dutton, a psychologist and expert on spousal homicide took the stand to tell the judge what they would say in their testimony. [-] Dutton, a research psychologist who specializes in spousal violence, testified that he would tell the jury about the factors that can lead to spousal homicide. Those characteristics include: previous violence in the household; jealousy; estrangement; stalking; and threats. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Yvonne Where do I get this enlightening article. But, the first and foremost authority on what clinical analysis--domestic abuse, homosexuality, or ??? I have never heard of this man and would like to compare him to the references that I have. jackief You may have trouble with the spelling. I could find no popular works offered by Amazon books but here are a couple of aging references: http://www.acjnet.org/docs/wifabopf.html "An average of 100 women a year are murdered by their male partners according to Statistics Canada. Donald Dutton, Canadian author and researcher, estimates that repeated, severe violence occurs in one in 14 marriages." http://www.mhcva.on.ca/forconf.htm Simcoe County Mental Health Education 1997 Forensic Conference Report [Forensic Conference Home] [SCMHE Home Page][Image] (This article was originally published in Entre Nous Autumn 1997) High ratings for this year's forensic conference [Image] By Marnie Rice Director of Research [-] Friday's sessions on treatment tissues were extremely well-received. Donald Dutton discussed the profiles of men who abuse their female partners and the treatment implications. [-] Suggestions for speakers or topics would be welcomed: Please call Marnie Rice at (705)549-3181 ext. 2614 [Dutton appeared on television a number of times and has gathered statistics on deaths resulting from domestic violence. I have no idea of his qualifications but people have rushed to damn someone they know nothing about.] Yvonne wrote: "Yvonne " [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Read Donald Dutten's studies on spousal abuse. He is the foremost authority on clinical analyis. -Original Message- From: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 11:15 PM Subject: Re: LI Did Simpson have help in cover-up? Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is the most ludicrous thing I have read in a long time. I suggest you both learn a bit more about homosexuality and domestic violence before trying to theorize on something you have clearly shown you know nothing about. The easiest thing to do is to base knowledge on myths instead of facts. It's comments like this that just turn my stomach and clearly show me that the advancement of knowledge has a long way to go in human behavior no matter what people claim. Viola Provenzano wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Yvonne, I've wondered about OJ's sexuality myself. Certainly his womanizing could be classified as "\Don Juanism" which is a case of the male fending off his desire for men by bedding a never ending series of women, preferably in one-night standsto show his contempt for the opposite sex. His treatment of Nicole would certainly fit into this pattern. Vi "What the world needs more of is not love, but justice." Anon. __ You wrote: I've always suspected Simpson of harboring homosexual tendencies.. . . -- 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 -- 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
Re: LI Woman Accused of Endangering Sons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Thanks. I *thought* that Indian reservations had their own laws. Hi Sue, They do indeed. The problem arises mostly with their jurisdiction over us forked tongues. :-} There are many battles here in New York with state authorities. At times the state has even threatened to blockade the Indian reservation to attempt to get its way. It is really the federal government that has jurisdiction in disputes. We have a lot of them around here, and that is why they can have gambling when the rest of the state can't. But is it really because they are under federal law, and not state law. Sue Yes. Supposedly the reservations are sovereign nations. It is honored only in the breach, of course. Crimes committed on Federal installations are federal crimes. The same is also true of crimes committed on Indian reservations if they are not handled by tribal authorities. Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI A new major: E-Crime 101
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: UTICA, N.Y., April 28 As the worlds of finance and technology become more intertwined... HERE IN THE pastoral setting of upstate New York farm country, ROTFL! I wonder if whoever wrote this thinks the students dropping over to Hardee's for fried chicken or a hamburger are living off the fat of the land. I doubt the idiot would know a horse from a cow. There is some lovely country around here but I wouldn't include Utica. college students are learning about the wicked ways of big-city economic crimes The mafia has a long tradition in Utica. They must get a lot of competition from the steady influx of drug dealers from New York City. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Woman Accused of Endangering Sons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I understand what is going on with the legalized pot issue. But I don't understand what you mean by the blockading the Indian gambling. How can they do that? Sue Just station police, or more simply signs or obstacles, on the roads to stop all vehicular traffic. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI The Rodney King Beating - The Other Story part two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Terry, How awful to go through life that way. Have any of those who harmed Denny, or their families, ever made any attempt to help him or show concern and sympathy? I don't recall who defended Williams. Joan Hi Joan, The lawyer who defended Williams is a black man with a foreign accent who has been on television many times. I don't know his name. We are helping Denny. He won a large award from the government. In actuality there is nothing that can be done for Denny himself but his family was made financially secure. It is unlikely that Williams or family or friends have done a damn thing for Denny. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Did Simpson have help in cover-up?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Yvonne " [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've always suspected Simpson of harboring homosexual tendencies. His known habit of spending hours on the telephone, his gossiping, his verbal gifts, his large group of male friends, his beating his wives. Geez, Yvonne, that seems to me the reverse. Verbal gifts and the telephone aside those who even have an excess of testosterone are more likely characterized by the latter. Homosexual males tend to have female friends. As such, killing Nicole because he was finally abandoned doesn't seem to have been strong enough for the strenuous exercise of killing. But if a man was involveda man who was what he was 20 years ago, handsome, successful, Heisman Trophy winner, well, that was a real thrat. Can't believe that I've missed this now-obvious angle for the past 4 years. I have always been skeptical of anything Faye Resnik said as a personal matter. She sold out a murdered friend but Petrocelli sure has a point if her stories have been backed up by others and have never been contradicted. It doesn't seem to me to take much to set Simpson off. This psycho may have been particularly bothered by Allen as Petrocelli speculates. I suspect there will never be anything really conclusive. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Justice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Terry, I agree that trials do not seem to be a search for the truth, mores the pity. However, from all I've read and heard there seems to be a long time between sentencing and the death penalty actually being carried out. Isn't it usually many years? Remember, Joan, that the most notorious case of prosecutor misconduct in this country currently which sent two men to death row was a cause celebre used to limit the appeals process. And the appeals process very seldom looks at evidence of innocence. They are mostly in interested in the famous procedural error which often has nothing whatever to do with guilt or innocence. One man went to his death with the Supreme Court agreeing that such evidence didn't matter. It was too late. I certainly agree there is no excuse for killing innocent people. Then it is illogical to favor the death penalty. How would you feel about the DP if you were sure there had not been a miscarriage of justice and no innocent person would be executed? Joan I shed no tears whatever for Ted Bundy. I think it will be just fine when Richard C. Harris is put out of his misery. I am sorry Pol Pot died before they hanged him. Being a bleeding heart liberal doesn't mean you don't have normal human emotions. 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: [Fwd: LI Noe: Update]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy,
Confessions may actually be the one kind of evidence worse than eyewitness
testimony for determining guilt or innocence. Case in point: the
confession of Jesse Misskelly of the West Memphis 3, a retarded boy who
thought he was excusing himself from the murders that created a wave of
satanic hysteria that gripped the town. Jesse had to be prompted over and
over to get the story right (e.g. the times had to go from the morning, to
noon, to early afternoon, to late afternoon). There was the more flippant
"confession" of Damien Echols to two cheerleaders ("yeah, I did it") if it
happened. Echols continued to show his sarcasm and contempt for the
proceeding and is sitting on death row. The three convicted are almost
certainly innocent.
I don't know if Mrs. Noe is guilty or not of murdering her children but
there is a hardening consensus of guilt that has nothing to do with the
state of the evidence IMO. It is part of a new wave of hysteria that says
SIDS infants are murdered. No doubt some have been but it is foolish to
deny the syndrome and to level accusations needlessly.
People are convicted of crimes because guilt is assumed. Just the way it
is, Kathy. The au pair case is the most recent example I know of. The best
experts available, who tesified for the defense, have been labeled
charlatans and paid liars, ivory tower types who know nothing of the real
world. They wrote the book on shaken baby syndrome. And once again we have
the supposed confession that wasn't.
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Mike and All :)
The one thing everyone should remember is though the links given are
quite interesting, not everyone has web access so they can't read the
pages that are being used for reference for this conversation, thus some
have no idea what is being discussed, I suggest maybe a short
description be offered in layman's terms of what this is :)
I don't think people were quick to jump on the bandwagon of convicting
anyone due to the number of children killed, this women confessed to the
murders, her husband tried to come out with an excuse on why she
confessed and why people should forget about the confession, it seems
some here have decided to forget the confession.
IMHO to use her case and circumstances as a possible way of enlightening
people to mitochondria is not a example I personally would do,
especially since she confessed to the murders, it would seem much better
for all concerned to use a actual case of someone who was/is affected by
this instead of a confessed killer.
Mike wrote:
Actually, I just want to see the truth come out in the Noe's case. Whether
that leads to murder *or* a medical explanation, or even both. The support
that I offered to the folks in Philly, came after I heard of the interest
in the case by Dr. Robert Naviaux (founder of the MMDC at UCSD, and also
assistant professor of internal medicine at UCSD) and Angie Longenecker
(clinical nurse coordinator), both of the Mitochondrial and Metabolic
Disease Center at the University of California, San Diego.
I'd hate to see someone convicted of a crime just because folks *think*
that they did it.
--
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
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Justice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Joan and Richard, Richard does indeed point out some of the problems of LWOP, which is a dodge used by many opponents of the death penalty. It is lazy thinking or more accurately sloganeering to head off the heedless passion of those who demand the death penalty. There is no rational argument for the death penalty. It may actually increase murders but it does not deter them to the best of our ability to understand. The victims' family and friends are ignored in either case. Families in Oklahoma City and innumerable other cases have begged for the life of the killers. Their voices are as little heeded as those who cry out for vengeance. The greatest problem with the death penalty is the fallibility of our very faulty justice system which is designed for drama rather than truth. Our fine governor, George Pataki, who proudly proclaims his reinstatement of the death penalty once used the case in Illinois where two men were railroaded in the rape/murder of a young girl to scream about the abominable and unjustified delays in carrying out the death penalty. Prosecutors and investigators have been indicted for the things prosecutors and investigators often do. The killer as usual goes unpunished. Killers usually do in this country. "Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Sody, You make a valid point as to how merciful LWP really is. Also, a point about the goal of rehab when the individual will not be released or will be released many so very many years in the future. I don't have a hard and fast position on the DP. I find myself able to agree with it in some instances and not in others. Joan Richard Soderstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How can you justify putting anyone in a cell for twenty five years?? I see no sense in our present system of criminal justice. Prisons if you must have them should be a sincere effort to reform the individual and getting him back as a productive member of society. If that is not possible than dispose of him so that he is no longer a burden on society. I can't imagine anything more horrible that sentencing a young person ( or an old person either) to Life Without Parole, really Life Without Hope.. On one hand we talk of assisted suicide and euthanasia as a relief for such a life and on the other condemn people to that very thing in the justice system. Someone suggested twenty five years for a thirteen year old. In jail until thirty eight?? What kind of a person will he be and what kind of life will he be able to lead?? I guess I am the Dr. Kevorkian of law and order. The dirty old Gandy Dancer 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI The Rodney King Beating - The Other Story part two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Joan, Reginald Denny is not universally forgotten. It is not likely that a misshapen head is the worst that Denny suffered. His meekness is most likely interrupted by periods of rage as for most such cases of brain damage. His injuries are permanent. The trial of Damian Williams was another travesty as was the original trial of the cops. Some forget that Briseno should never have been tried at all yet was tried twice. It's just "the cops" that are discussed. "Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Vi, I found it unfair to the taxpayers that King and his lawyers made so much money from the incident. I remember reading at the time the lawyers were criticized for charging an inordinate amount of money. What was the case where a white truck driver was trying to get out of the riot area and a group of young black men stopped him and one beat him almost to death with a brick. He left the man to die and that would have happened except a humane black man got him to the hospital in time. I believe the trucker almost died and his head is still misshapen. What punishment did a predominantly black jury impose upon the perpetrator? How many millions did the trucker receive? I can't remember all the details or even the man's name. How sad that the name of the trucker is forgotten while the name of a criminal like King is known and he became almost a hero. Joan -- From: Viola Provenzano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LI The Rodney King Beating - The Other Story part two Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 7:35 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Bill, Seems to me they paid for NOT breaking the law. Just as Rodney King was the law-breaker, it is the cops that got tried and went to jail. Ole Rodney ended up smelling like a rose, a millionaire free to continue his dissolute lifestyle. This is all too typical of alf our topsy-turvy times Vi "What the world needs more of is not love, but justice." Anon. __ You wrote: . . .I"m sure King and the cops DO know exactly what went down. And they all paid for breaking the law. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Justice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Terry,
There appears to be no fully satisfactory solution in all cases for what to
do with those who commit the crime of murder. I have felt the DP was more
correct in some instances and LWOP in others. I really don't think one can
say the DP deters murder any more than one can say it does not. Some may
be deterred and others not.
Joan
Hi Joan,
Obviously a dead Ted Bundy will kill no more but at least one serial killer
("Charmer," Jack Olsen) took Bundy as a model. Those executed become more
of a heroic model than a caged animal like Charles Manson, even with his
cult following. Anyway statistics seem to bear out that a death penalty
actually increases murders rather than deters them.
But my main complaint against the death penalty is that we kill innocent
people. Few advocates of the death penalty are willing to face that.
Even above that the executioner often harvests the least offensive killers.
Caryl Chessman, whose ghost saved many from the hangman for decades, wrote
about some bank robbers who killed a teller. When the driver, who had never
before been involved in serious crime, was executed the hardened killers had
escaped with their lives. As best I can recall they were already out of
prison. They knew the ropes and had access to the best defense lawyers.
That's pretty much the way the system works.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI The Rodney King Beating - The Other Story part two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Joan, "Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about Reginald Denny] Hello Terry, I remembered the case but must admit I could not recall the name of the victim or of the perpetrator. I agree that whatever allowed Williams to avoid punishment was a travesty. Does Denny suffer periods of rage? I don't know. He appeared to this untrained observer and to others more knowledgeable to be typical of someone who has suffered severe and permanent brain damage. Somewhere in my memory, I though he actually asked for mercy for those who attacked him. Hard to believe. I don't believe I could have done that. What you should understand is that is quite typical behavior. I visited a cowboy years ago a couple of times in an asylum. He had been dragged by his horse, his skull was split open and I was told even some of his brain matter spilled out on the desert ground. I don't know that the last was not the usual color but the papers were full of the miraculous recovery. This was many years ago when brain surgery was very rare. Jim became very placid, a vast change from his former temperament. He did not return to his wife and kids. His wife had her hands full without him. His brother took him in but eventually gave up and Jim went to an asylum for the rest of his life. The sudden rages, though rare, were just too scary especially with the usual access to weapons available on a farm. It is somewhat equivalent to the sudden rages of those with Alzheimer's who are mostly quite tranquil. In fact, I think it was wrong of him to do so if his appeal in any way moved the jury not to jail Williams and anyone else who participated. Joan Don't blame him, Joan. The poor guy was brain damaged. Unfortunately you can't say the same for those who used him. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Arnelle Simpson arrested
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: And I bet that they do know the *truth*. Or at least Sydney does. :( How sad. Sue Not likely, Sue. At least not consciously. It is Sydney who clung to her father most, who most ferociously denied he was the killer, who is likely the most disturbed today and in the future. It was sick that the kids were returned to their father. That is real child abuse. 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: [Fwd: LI Noe: Update]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Mike. It is an old story. The one group of people that are most certainly guilty before proven innocent are parents. Our kindly government looks out for everyone else. "Mike" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, Mito disorders aren't "EXTREMELY" rare, just not diagnosed. 1 in 4000 is more common than pediatric cancer. Studies have shown that even aging is a process of the mitochondrial functions breaking down (Doug Wallace, Emory in Atlanta.) Because of this misconception, we've had parents put through horrendous situations by ignorant physicians who thought that they were 100% correct in their (mis)diagnosis. Folks have died as a result of this, we have children with permanent physical damage, and others have emotional scars that will take halfway to forever to heal because of well-meaning medical/social/protection services workers. TTFN Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- There is also a commonly used phrase in medicine, used to emphasize the fact that common things are common, rare things are rare. Child abuse is VERY common, mitochondrial disease is EXTREMELY rare. "When you hear the sounds of galloping hooves, think of horses, not zebras! Ron --- 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: LI SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: How do you I don't answer questions in this forum from those who only indulge in personal attacks. Should you ever decide to clean yourself up and lay off the stuff then we can talk. If you wish to indulge to silly fantasy of believing Susan McDougal went to jail to avoid going to jail, continue on. The people you think are laughing with you may be laughing at you. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Gotta Love the HMO's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Verdict fires warning shot at managed care Doctor wins case claiming he was fired for delivering high-quality care Karen Brandon; Chicago Tribune SAN DIEGO - These are the things Dr. Thomas Self believes cost him his job: He spent too much time with his patients. He ordered too many tests that didn't generate enough profits. He refused to perform unnecessary surgeries. My favorite was a doctor refusing to perform cataract surgery on a woman in her 90's with Alzheimer's. Surgery and other procedures for government and insurance reimbursement may be as much a threat as lack of proper care. My wife upset a hospital once when she refused to have a routine x-ray when she was pregnant. X-rays at the time were very profitable while other insurance-reimbursed charges could actually generate losses. I suppose the threat of x-rays to a developing fetus is not as great as hysterical sorts would have it but the benefit was not obvious and there was at least some unknown possibility of damage. I sure wish there were more Dr. Selfs. Very glad there is one. It is not as easy as some imagine to sue. Thanks for the article, Ron. 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: Jonesboro--guns was LI Jones Appeal Difficult, But Not Impossible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue and Jackie, It may just be a peculiarity of Jackie's insurance company. Or maybe it is regional. We have a German Shepherd pup that will not raise our rates. If we had a pit bull it would not either but I am told if we lived in New York City rather than upstate we would pay dearly for insurance on a pit bull because of the New York City ordinances. I would guess Jackie's neighbors don't like dogs. I have never had trouble with pit bulls. Unlike, say, dobermans they always seemed quite friendly. Dobermans (and chows) are hard to read. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: It must be a state thing, because we have a Chow with an attitude. They are rated up there as being not too nice with outsiders, and we don't pay extra on the insurance for her. In fact I don't even remember being asked if we had a dog or not. Sue Hi Ron That is because you don't have one of the guard breeds. We are automatically jumped up for insurance just because of the breed--doesn't matter if they are trained or anything. They might bite a robber so therefore we pay more. We can't list them as an alarm system even though our system works before the robber enters :( jackief Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Arnelle Simpson arrested
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry was just saying that in pictures of the family, Sydney looked very protective of her father. Much more, Sue. It was reported that Sydney would not visit the Browns when Justin did, that she was particularly vehement in saying that OJ was innocent. You may recall that Justin even wrote the odd play with his father as a killer. Justin probably was better protected by age - and gender. I don't know if she has slimmed back down but Sydney was putting on a lot of weight and there was speculation (perhaps totally empty) that it may have had to do with her mental condition. The kids have to have undergone enormous stress from playmates. 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: Jonesboro--guns was LI Jones Appeal Difficult, But Not Impossible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just for the record, Sue. German shepherds have killed more kids than any other dog I have read, far more than pit bulls. It could be because they are so common but I would also attribute it to their willingness to run in packs. I think pit bulls suffer more from a bad press than a mean disposition. Temperament is largely a matter of genetics but I agree that a dog can be mean or gentle more depending on the owner than genetics. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Chows are very unpredictable dogs I agree. I don't have any problem with the one that I have, nor the one before her, but I certainly would never suggest one as a pet to anyone. She as well, as her predecessor, is a one person dog. She will tolerate others, but just don't push it. Pit Bulls on the other hand, I wouldn't trust at all. We have had too many Pit Bulls right here in the city attack people without warning or cause and do some horrible damage up to and including death. Dobermans, I don't know that much about. But I do know that my dad was terrified of them. I have a feeling though that went back to WWII and Germany. German Shepherds are big babies. I grew up around them, and never had any problems with them whatsoever. I honestly think the temperament of a dog is determined by it's owner. A little genetics, and a lot of environment. :) Sue Hi Sue and Jackie, It may just be a peculiarity of Jackie's insurance company. Or maybe it is regional. We have a German Shepherd pup that will not raise our rates. If we had a pit bull it would not either but I am told if we lived in New York City rather than upstate we would pay dearly for insurance on a pit bull because of the New York City ordinances. I would guess Jackie's neighbors don't like dogs. I have never had trouble with pit bulls. Unlike, say, dobermans they always seemed quite friendly. Dobermans (and chows) are hard to read. -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI New evidence of a plot to Kill Nicole
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry but I don't believe it, but here it is anyway New evidence of plot to kill Nicole Brown L.A. County DA's Office sitting on witness charge? By David M. Bresnahan © Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com Evidence that a conspiracy took place in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, and that a hit man was hired, has been held quietly without action in the Los Angeles County District Attorney' Office, according to information provided by an individual close to the investigation. A letter from attorney Lawrence M. Longo... It's one of the regular internet hoaxes, Sue. Longo is a real attorney and has a case for libel. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI New evidence of a plot to Kill Nicole
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Yvonne " [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Longo is the Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney who was fired from his office last year. A career civil servant that was fired. For what? For taking a bribe from that South Central LA thug, Suga Knight, owner of a record label, currently being investigated by the Feds for taking drug profits to start p his company and questionable activitites in a murder plot, who was up for charges of assault. An assistant district attorney who took money to lower the charges.That's who Longo is. Thanks, Yvonne. How come this jerk still has a license to practice? At least that is what I read as well as a claim that there was no such letter from him. I thought the name was familiar. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Terry: Youth Chess Tourney Teaches Lessons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ``In chess, you have to make decisions, and if you make a wrong decision, you lose,'' said Mike Leali, an event organizer. ``Every time you make a decision that's right, you're rewarded. The ability to make the right decision over and over again translates to life.'' I'm not so sure, Sue, that chess is always that beneficial. As with any sport (I do not apologize for calling it that) it is not without drawbacks. They had numerous tournaments in Syracuse. The movie, "Looking For Bobby Fischer," was based on a real player whose first major tournament was in the national elementary championship in Syracuse though it was not mentioned as best I can recall. One of the team members from the famous Harlem school that routinely wins the national team championship wrote on his scoresheet for opponent: "Who the fuck cares." He had a great deal to learn in life that he would not learn in chess. Sometimes the strain of playing at the highest levels seems to lead to madness. But I think overall the paragraph above is not totally inaccurate, especially for the more ordinary run of player whose life is not governed by Caissa. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Not My Kids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Newsgroups: alt.true-crime [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MO CAFEEN) writes: I think most of us can remember something especially nice someone, other than our parents, did for us when we were children. For some kids, gestures like these could be treasures they'll take with them into adulthood. And yes, maybe, just maybe, they'll realize that someone, somewhere saw them as a valuable human being, deserving to be treated with dignity. Hanging up a picture they've drawn, right there on the fridge, next to your own kids, giving them a small chore to do, then complimenting a job well done. Each small act any one of us does for these children, which costs us nothing, could be priceless to them. Well, I'm gonna ramble a little bit here, but hey, so shoot me. Low on caffeine tonight. Long post ahead. Those who want to exit now... When I was about 20 years old I lived alone in a little duplex with a small front back yard. One day a little boy and his friend came by and asked if they could rake my yards for me; they wanted some money to go roller skating. I paid them $5.00. They then came back every weekend for a few weeks, and then it gradually became an almost daily visit. They hung around and ate my food and watched my T.V. I didn't mind; these kids would do anything I asked. Needed a little help washing the car? No problem. Take out the trash? Gladly. I enjoyed having them around, which surprised me at 20 years old. One of the boys was named Bryan. He started hanging around *all* the time. We rented movies practically every day. He wanted to ride along with me to the store. Etc. etc. etc. Bryan told me that his Mom and Dad were drug users, although they thought they were keeping that little secret from him. Mom had needle tracks in her arm, and spent an awful lot of time locked in the shed alone. Dad was drunk or high much of the time and couldn't keep a job. Thus, Bryan and his two little brothers lived in a rickety travel-trailer in a dirty little trailer park that stood behind a bar near my home. Gradually I learned that they had no electricity or running water, and that they bathed using a garden hose in back of the bar. The *real* reason Bryan had initially started spending so much time at my house was because I had air conditioning. Oh, and food I'm sure. One day Bryan stopped by during what should have been school hours. I asked him why he wasn't in school. Well, he had been sent home for having lice. Dad had shaved his head to get rid of them, but they kept coming back because his bedding was infested. I promptly took Bryan to the drugstore and bought some"RID" for the lice, and then went on to buy him and his brothers new bedding and pillows. Mom sent me a Thank-You note. Without even noticing, I began buying Bryan an awful lot of necessities. After summer passed and fall was coming on, I bought him school clothes and a jacket. His Mom responded by sending me another nice Thank-You note, along with the shoe and pant sizes of his little brothers! People said she was taking advantage. I weighed that, and I didn't care, I decided. I bought shoes, clothes, and jackets for the brothers. Christmas came. Myself and some of my family bought the kids gifts and delivered them late on Christmas Eve, all marked "from Santa". I also bought food for their Christmas dinner. By this time I was engaged to be married. My soon-to-be-husband was throwing absolute fits! These parents were taking advantage! Oh, the money! The money I was spending on kids who *weren't mine*!!! Well, a few months later Bryan's Dad decided it was time to uproot his little family and go try to get a job in another state. They had no forwarding address they could give, as they didn't know exactly where they would be living. The somehow managed to buy a truck with a little camper on the back, and that was to be home until Dad found work. I bought them a microwave oven (used) for their little camper and packed a box of canned goods. I cried and said good-bye to twelve-year-old Bryan, making him promise to write when he knew where they would be living. I never saw Bryan again. About five months after they had "moved", I received a phone call at work. Apparently Bryan's Mom had remembered where I worked, since I had married and moved by this time and had no way to tell them my new address. I remember very little about this call. It was a woman's voice and she said she was calling on behalf of Debbie Moore. The same didn't sink in at first (Bryan's Mom). Then she asked if I was the same "(insert my first name here)" who had known Bryan. I said I was. All I remember after that is "sorry" and "accident" and "playing with gun". Bryan had been killed. Ten minutes later I couldn't even remember what state she said he had been living in, but she had given me a phone number for some relatives in Albequerque. I tried the number several times for about a two months. There
Re: LI Re: D.P.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't speak for Ron, but admit I take satisfaction in the execution of adults If I feel they are guilty of the crime. I take no pleasure and experience great sadness when innocent people are slaughtered by some deranged nut. Who probably can blame it all on his upbringing or better yet can't be convicted because they didn't Merandize him. Sody Go right ahead and speak for me as you speaketh the truth. Too often the anti-DP faction completely ignores the victims of these crimes, and feels sorry for the killer. Victims have many fewer rights than the criminals in this country. Ron Killing is indeed fun but not all families of victims wish to see more killing. You are quite correct, Ron, nobody cares much about the feelings of victims. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Child death sentence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Just out of curiosity, and NOT bringing religion into it at all, do you think that it is possible for someone to be born 'evil'? We just got a manual for our new shit machine. Rosie is a German Shepherd. They are supposed to be smart. Easily trained. I would like to speak to whatever idiot put out that damnable lie. Anyway the trainer has a chapter on "psychotic dogs." He says he learned the hard way that there are dogs that just cannot be trained not to bite. Their attacks are sporadic and impossible to predict. One was a basset hound that had a family's kids scared to death. Yeah I think there are kids like that. All the experts with all the answers are like the fellow I once knew who had taken a correspondence course on how to break horses. Never broke any, mind you, but if he ever saw one he could. I have always thought that it was environment that makes a person what they are, but some of these kids certainly weren't brought up to be the way that they are. I don't know if you saw 48 Hours last night but it was really something. Sue No I didn't, Sue. Sounds like I missed something. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Child death sentence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Terry :) Tell your friend you never break a horse, you train it, no one likes broken horses (G) Any fellow who took a correspondence course in how to break horses is not likely to be told much of anything. Can't say I saw any broken horses but I saw a lot of broken cowboys. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Perjury
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perjury charges seldom leads to jailing according to court observers when Mark Fuhrman pled guilty. It is pure idiocy to claim Susan McDougal is willing to spend years in jail for contempt of court to avoid the odd prospect of being tried and convicted of perjury for telling the truth. Oh yeah. It is also very difficult to get a perjury conviction. Clintonistas are not bound by the rules of logic or they wouldn't be clintonistas. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Back Home
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Joan: I'm so glad that you are back "home". Missed you a lot. Sue Hello Everyone, We arrived back in Fl Tues. night. Set up the computer before all the bags and boxes were unpacked. Priorities! Didn't get to read much of your posts while in Pa since the computer was in the tax office. I'll have to catch up. Good to be back. Joan It sounds like the usual priority of junkies. :-} Welcome back, Joan. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Whitewater Witness Goes on Trial in Arkansas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Susan McDougal is truly unique. Reporters have gone to prison rather than reveal sources to a grand jury. People with knowledge of a crime have refused to testify under immunity in fear of their lives or that of their family. All those were afraid to tell the truth. Only Susan McDougal is going to be forced to lie by Torquemada who can punish her for telling the truth. Nevermind that the punishment Susan has shown herself willing to undergo is greater than any punishment your vision of Torquemada could impose by somehow convincing a jury that black is white. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No Terry I believe she said she went to jail *rather* than to testify the way Starr wanted her to. That is not the same as going to jail for not testifying to the truth. And, if she tesifies as she says is the truth, he will cite her for perjury because her story contradicts his star witness, Hale's, story. It all depends on who's story you believe--Hale's or Susan's that leads you to believe which is lying and committing perjury. I guess I prefer to believe someone that does not sell her soul to get out of going to prison, rather than one who feels none of his crimes should go to court as he figured he was immune to prosecution by testifying that the Clintons were involved and knew it was a scam. It appears you left out a few words when you related this--the words being "rather than testify the *way* Starr wanted, not necessarily the truth. Maybe you could start with Pascal, rather than Kant : ) jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, If you can follow the logic of going to jail for not testifying to the truth because then you could go to jail for perjury (which few ever do) for telling the truth, I will have to take your word for it. I think it would be easier to understand Kant. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. She is serving time for her Whitewater conviction. Her trial for embezzlement is pending. And she is going to jail for contempt of court. Unless you think she is a masochist she is obviously hiding something - to with Clinton's involvement in Whitewater. Best, Terry Hi Terry I am a little puzzled here. I don't think that her refusal to testify necessarily implies she is hiding something, nor that she is a masochist. Isn't that rather a leap in logic?? Yes, in many cases people don't talk because they are hiding something, but that is not always the case. It depends on the assumptions you are making to draw your conclusions. Some people would think she was a staunch defender of the "truth" and unwilling to submit to power. Others would say the "truth" will set her free. Depends on your starting point doesn't it?? Instead of starting with the assumption that Clinton is guilty, try starting with the assumption that he is innocent and that just possibly this is a political witch hunt. I would think then that two different conclusions will be made. Susan may be a "Joan of Arc" in disguise VBG. 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 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 -- 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: LI NOW Will Not Back Paula Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They instead are throwing their support to the case that is presently before the Supreme Court, and are going before Congress, etc and lobbying for harder laws concerning this. Sue Good for NOW. This case, supported by NOW, could be potentially much more harmful to Clinton than Paula Jones case, especially in the Wiley mauling. Ron If the reports from the Supreme Court are correct, the justices were very hostile to the plaintiff and NOW will lose. Ordinarily that would be great news for NOW because they are best at mobilizing outrage. But as you know they have already cut their own throats by dividing women up into good girls and bad girls. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Perjury
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clintonistas are not bound by the rules of logic or they wouldn't be clintonistas. Best, Terry Hi Terry Well that just goes to prove I am not a Clintonite at least by your statement. Of course, I didn't know that being a member of a certain political party determined whether you used logic or not. That is really the best logical statement I have ever heard, almost as good as "trickle down" economic policy in a global economy will jump start the economy. Democratnon-logical person Republican---logical person jackief Hi Jackie, When you come to a totally false conclusion, perhaps you should re-examine your logic and your premise. I have been a registered Democrat all my life and was once even invited to the Democratic National Convention as a delegate. I have never voted for a Republican for president and have failed to vote for only two nominees of the Democratic Party. I voted against Clinton as a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Child death sentence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to admit that you are probably right about that. However that doesn't explain why every child born in poverty doesn't turn to crime though. There are a lot, probably most, who don't. Hi Sue, Children with rotten parents often turn out good and monsters can have ideal parents. In the end there is often no one to scapegoat though it is human to want to blame somebody. Blame God. :-} Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Another One Bites the Dust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? What "clemency people" are there BTW? "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sure glad that these clemency people are ignoring the Pope, the UN, the Dept. of Justice, Pat Robertson, and carrying out these hard earned executions. Ron HONDURAN CITIZEN EXECUTED IN ARIZONA Arizona executed a Honduran citizen early Wednesday despite pleas from his country that he was denied rights assured him under an international treaty. Jose Roberto Villafuerte, 45, was convicted of killing Amelia Schoville in 1983. She suffocated after he left her bound and gagged in his Phoenix trailer. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected his last appeal Tuesday. The Board of Executive Clemency voted 4-1 against commuting his sentence despite requests from the Vatican and the Honduran president. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: LI Another One Bites the Dust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, A single Supreme Court Justice can issue a stay awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court but there is no requirement ever for a unanimous Supreme Court in any decision. The vote was 6-3 to let the execution proceed despite the violation of our treaty obligations. Dissenting opinions pointed out the rush to execute without full consideration of the law was - ummm - injudicious. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Dr. L. brought up something, and Jackie and I wonder too, there was not a 100% vote by the Supremes on this. And from reading their decision it looked to me like one of the reasons was that they didn't really have time to look into the "international" problem before he was executed. They did state that they hoped that the state would hold off. But obviously the state didn't listen. :( So my question is why couldn't they have held off executing him, until all these questions could be answered. And shouldn't there be a 100% decision with the Supremes before they decide that a person should be executed as there is with a jury? Hope you can help us with this? Sue Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? What "clemency people" are there BTW? -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Another One Bites the Dust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of so little concern to you? Terry: I believe it is a two-way street. If a US citizen commits a capital crime in a foreign country, then he should be subject to that country's punishment. Actually most of us do not have much concern with that. It is of some more concern when an American couple is of a crime of which they are innocent because they are Americans. You may recall the recent case of the couple who were accused of murder in one of the wonderful tropical paradises so that the government might reap financial rewards. Our southern neighbor Mexico is famous for detaining and arresting Americans for the financial rewards. I also don't think that a US citizen, like Pang, whose arson caused fire killed three firemen, should be allowed to escape the death penalty, just because he fled to Argentina which would not extradite him, unless he would not be subject to the death penalty. Canada does the same as do many other countries. Should we invade them? I was somewhat more concerned with this country obeying its own laws. It might help make an argument when other countries imprison Americans and ignore international law. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Whitewater Witness Goes on Trial in Arkansas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hale argued a plea agreement and immunity granted to him by Whitewater prosecutors in 1994 should protect him in the state case. He also claimed the case was political payback by his opponents for his cooperation with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. Hi Sue, Does the last give you any hint why Susan McDougal might not want to testify before the grand jury besides her fantastic claim she will prosecuted for telling the truth? Susan is awaiting trial on an embezzlement charge. I agree with you she has been caught between big boys playing mean and dirty. It is illegal but common to torture recalcitrant witnesses who may even fear for their lives or that of family if they testify. The law says they must be released when it becomes obvious they will not submit to pressure. Obviously Susan has shown she never will (read can). But it is Clinton who holds the aces rather than Starr. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Texas To Execute Teen Murderer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the Pope and Terry think he should not be executed! TICRon The Pope might tell God what He thinks but the Pope doesn't have a vote. I do. Hehehehe. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Think they will ever track down all 100 million of us secret conspirators? Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES IN WHITEWATER BRIBERY SCHEME Claims Husband was Paid to Talk to Jeff Gerth in '92 Monday night (4/20) on the Charles Grodin Show, proponents of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" theory finally overplayed their hand - bigtime. In a taped interview with a Grodin staffer, Whitewater convict Susan McDougal alleged that her husband, Jim McDougal, was paid - and possibly promised a job - for an interview with New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth, who broke the Whitewater story in March 1992 largely based on Mr. McDougal's account. She leveled the bribery charge as her lawyer, Mark Geragos, along with fellow Grodin guests Gene Lyons, John Fund and Gil Davis, explored the allegations that another key Whitewater witness, David Hale, was also paid to tell prosecutors what he knew about Whitewater. Mrs. McDougal and Geragos hope those allegations taint Hale enough to win her a new trial. And the parallel charges implicating Jim McDougal and The New York Times appear to be an attempt to illustrate just how "vast" the conspiracy to destroy Bill Clinton really was. Mrs. McDougal debuted her explosive and bizarre allegations early in the Grodin program, when asked about the origins of the Whitewater scandal. She explained: "I first knew that there was an issue when I was visiting my ex-husband (Jim McDougal) and he told me that he was going to meet with Jeff Gerth of The New York Times. And he was very ebullient that day and excited about it. And he made me understand that there was something in it for him. He was getting something out of this interview; money and the possibility of a job or something. And he said 'I might need you to come in and back me up but I'm going to try to keep you out of it if I can.' Well, from that interview with The New York Times - that Jim was clearly motivated to say certain things - grew Whitewater. And from my perspective Whitewater just never existed. I knew about that business deal; the small land deal in Northern Arkansas. I'd been there. I'd talked to the Clintons about it. I'd talked to Jim about it. And I never knew anything that was remotely illegal about that. So, to tell you the truth - I am as puzzled about how they decided to go after Whitewater as anybody else. Except I know that the very first story, from the very beginning, was not true. And I know that when Jim told that story, he was being paid - or motivated in some way to tell it." Of the allegations that David Hale's Whitewater story was paid for, The New York Times has said the charge is serious enough to merit a thorough official investigation, even though the supporting evidence is "scant". Susan McDougal's allegation that the Times was a party to a scheme to bribe the very man whose tale launched the Whitewater scandal, Jim McDougal, would seem to be far more serious than the allegations against Mr. Hale, especially since it taints the Times' own reportage. And though Susan McDougal may be a proven liar and convicted felon awaiting trial on seperate embezzlement charges, she does seem to have established herself as a credible source in the eyes of the mainstream press, given the fact that they never tire of interviewing her. Will the New York Times call for Janet Reno or Ken Starr to investigate this time? -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Child death sentence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Maybe as long as you are wondering who to blame for the problems maybe you and I have some part in this. There is a reason that children make up the major portion of the poor in this country. The last report I saw said that 1 out of 5 children live in poverty. The country has decided that children aren't worth as much as others. The main problem is the long decline in wages in this country. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to agree here. The government in getting into the family too much and then leaving the mess that they make for the parents to clean up. I do agree with that. But it still is your family, and knowing where your kids are, as well as well as making them go to school (which can be next to impossible in some situations) is still up to the parent. No matter what the government says. But it has to start in infancy, you can't start when they reach high school age (or even younger) and expect to have results. What is strange here is that no one wants to blame the kid for what he does. Yet no one wants to blame anyone else either. Sue Sue Even beyond that, Doc, is the increasing willingness of the government to assume a position of authority but leaving all the responsibility with the parents. The government is willing to even kill kids but it is the parents' fault. Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Digs Fail To Verify Iraq Warheads
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-20 10:47:32 EDT, you write: Saddam says they were destroyed, if they ever existed, and how is he suppose to prove that they have been destroyed, if they have been destroyed as he claims. I say that we should stop throwing our money into the Gulf and get out. Ron Such faith is touching, Ron. I just can't reach that far. Doc But, Doc, surely you recognize Ron has no faith in Saddam but is an isolationist following at least a consistent logic. Saddam is our creation and is protected by us while at the same time he has become the enemy. For those who doubt that Saddam is being protected consider the often repeated statements about needing to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq (for what reason? why to counterbalance Iran, of course, which is now being helped on their nuclear weapon program by our new Communist friend China), the betrayal of the Kurds when they revolted (what else is new - Kurds are always betrayed and we even support the Turkish genocide of Kurds). If you would like to explain this kind of crap, be my guest. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Digs Fail To Verify Iraq Warheads
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-20 12:13:33 EDT, you write: If you would like to explain this kind of crap, be my guest. Best, Terry It's your crap, love. You explain it. Doc Sorry, Doc. I do not pay the billions for government idiocy by myself. Your help is greatly appreciated if not your desire to tolerate it. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Debate on the Death Penalty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is your host for "Firing Line," William F. Buckley, yawn and if I sound rawther bored it is because I am. It is not easy using very laaarge words to express the most pedantic thoughts. We are going to have a debate on the death penalty tonight. I will let my trusty conservative sidekick, Michael Kinsley, who Ted Turner and myself like to pretend is a liberal so we won't have to deal with those people handle the boring details." Michael Kinsley: Tee hee Thank you, Mr. Buckley. I will let each of the guests introduce themselves while I write down clever things I might be able to say because I can't think very fast. First the anti-death penalty side: Pope John Paul II: Thank you, Mr. Kinsley. I am the Pope. In my encyclical I quoted our Lord: Suffer the little children... Bill: We don't need none of your Papal Bull. Ha ha, ho ho. choke, snort Jackie: Ha. That's a good one, Bill. I can't stop laughing. Ouch! Stop that. Do I have to sit next to this guy? Charles Manson: Oh, stop your screeching. I have a lot better women than you. Jackie: I don't mean you. I mean him. Michael Kinsley: Tee hee. That was a great one, Bill. Wish I could think of those things. But that's the way he wanted it Jackie. President Clinton: She screeches just like Paula Jo - oops, I mean Hilla - no, I mean the way Chelsea does. Your pain is my pain, Jackie. Bites lip You know how it is when you are away from home. Michael Kinsley: Can we get back to the anti-death penalty side? Mario Cuomo: Thank you, Mr. Kinsley. My name is Mario Cuomo and I would like to say... Bill: Nobody cares what you say, Mri. You're beaten, boy. Ha ha ha ha. choke, snort Jackie: That's telling him, Bill. Boy you're good. Ha ha ha ha ha. Charlie Manson: Hey, you want me and my girls to take care of them for you? We aren't against no death penalty. President Clinton: No, no, no, that's alright, Charlie. You taxpayers - well not you, Charlie - are paying me to do a job and we got people on the White House staff that can take care of enemies. Michael Kinsley: Yeah that was good, Bill. But let's let the other side say something, shall we? Bill: We don't need that Papal Bull. Haaa haaa choking up again Jackie: It just gets funnier and funnier, Bill. wiping eyes and blowing nose Michael Kinsley: That's just so funny, Bill. I'm going to go write it down before I forget it. William F. Buckley: Well this has been a very enlightening discourse. Thank you all, ladies and gentlemen. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Presidential Scandals in U.S. History
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Tell me what affairs Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter had. Reagan was an aging playboy but it is unlikely he had any affairs as President. Roosevelt's affair is disputed BTW. I vaguely remember the story about Nixon's affair but it is most difficult to believe. People like to believe gossip. Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton have been far out of the mold and it is a mark of the decline of American morals. Reagan was the first divorced president, which is not particularly remarkable and would normally show a maturity in voters, but I can think of no other man who had remotely the same history as a plastic hero. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I really don't know if the stories are true or not, but why would Eisenhower be any less likely to have an affair with someone than Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, or any of the other Presidents. In fact under the circumstances, IMO, it would be more likely, and a lot more understood. Sue Hi Sue and Vi, Eisenhower was hardly in the same position as combat troops. People make up their own stories. In Vietnam one major was seen everyplace with a blonde Swede that was, as they say, built. When he got ill and was sent to a hospital in the Phillippines the diagnosis came back shockingly that he had that old Hawaiian disease that Ron may be able to discuss: lak-o-nooky. It was not exactly the diagnosis that most of us would have guessed. 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Rutherford Institute - Not A Member of VRWC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While at least 100 million of us fundamentalists, atheists, agnostics, schismatics, heretics, heathen, conservatives, reactionaries and liberals belong to the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy (VRWC) the Rutherford Institute, which has paid Paula Jones legal expenses but not her lawyers, does not. Nary a dime from the Head Kook, Richard Mellon Scaife, has been received by the Rutherford Institute. We have to rely partly on the word of the saintly John Whitehead, founder of the Institute, since they have resisted efforts to make them divulge membership. The Institute has been aided in keeping membership lists secret by that prime member of the VRWC, the ACLU. The Rutherford Institute was born in 1982 when religious zealot Ronald Reagan, who never went to church to save them, was elected. All sorts of new conservative charitable lobbies cropped up on lists of charities approved for donation by us federal government bureaucrats at about that time. The ACLU was kicked off coincidentally. The Rutherford Institute began as an outfit to protect religious freedom, e.g. force us heathen to pray. The newfound interest in women's rights is mirrored by womens' rights organizations who have discovered working bitches complain too much. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Some Convicts Who Cheated Execution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the past 10 years 8 convicts in Illinois have cheated the executioner. Maybe if they hurried things along a bit more as suggested by many here... Sunday, April 12, 1998 By Carolyn Tuft Of The Post-Dispatch In the past decade, eight men have been sentenced to die for murder in Illinois only to be later found innocent and released. Two others who received long prison sentences for murder also were eventually proved innocent. Even when another person confessed, prosecutors sometimes retried those already convicted of the crime. Here's a look at the cases: - Perry Cobb and Darby Tillis were accused of robbing and killing two men in 1977 on the north side of Chicago. Three trials later, a Cook County jury convicted Cobb and Tillis on testimony of a female friend and evidence - a watch in Cobb's possession that belonged to one of the victims. Cobb maintained he bought the watch from a boyfriend of the female friend. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction based on an error by trial Judge Thomas J. Maloney, who has since been convicted of taking bribes in criminal cases. He took the money in exchange for granting lighter sentences. A prosecutor in Lake County later came forward to tell the state's attorney that the female friend told him that she and her boyfriend had committed the crimes. Prosecutors ignored the Lake County prosecutor and tried Tillis and Cobb twice more. The last one in 1987 set them free. The other two suspects were never charged. - Dennis Williams, Willie Rainge, Verneal Jimerson and Kenny Adams were accused of the abduction and murder of a couple taken from a filling station in Homewood, near Chicago, in 1978 and shot to death. A witness claimed to have seen the four men near the murder scene. All were convicted. Williams and Jimerson were sentenced to death. An investigation by Northwestern University journalism students showed that police had fed a key witness information that helped convict the men. DNA tests exonerated all four suspects. Four other men later confessed to the crime. Police were aware of their identities but never interviewed them. - Alejandro Hernandez and Rolando Cruz were accused of the kidnapping, rape and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico on Feb. 25, 1983. A DuPage County jury convicted the two and sentenced them to death. Months later, Brian Dugan, a repeat sex offender and murderer, told police he killed Jeanine and provided a detailed description of the crime. In 1988, Hernandez and Cruz won new trials. DNA tests linked Dugan to the crime, but prosecutors retried Hernandez and Cruz for the murder, not Dugan. In all, they were tried three times. During the third trial, a police officer testified that he'd lied under oath and, in 1995, the pair were found innocent. Four police officers and three former prosecutors involved in the case were charged with official misconduct. Dugan was never tried for the crime. [This was a case widely used as a horrible example of the bureaucratic delays that keep killers alive on death row. Our own NY Governor George Pataki railed against keeping these killers alive and wanted the state to get on with executing them. We now have a death penalty so we can kill innocent folk too.] - Joseph Burrows was accused of robbing and killing an 88-year-old retired farmer at his home southeast of Kankakee in 1988. Gayle Potter, a cocaine addict, implicated Burrows, who was convicted and sentenced to die for the crime based on the addict's statement. Potter later admitted she'd lied and that she'd killed the farmer. Burrows was freed in 1994. - Gary Gauger was accused of killing his 74-year-old father and 70-year-old mother in 1993 at their farmhouse near Richmond, Ill. There was no physical evidence linking Gauger to the crime, but police said he incriminated himself during an 18-hour interrogation. A jury convicted Gauger and sentenced him to die. On appeal, Gauger won his freedom in 1994 after an appellate court ruled there was no probable cause to arrest Gauger. Last June, two motorcycle gang members were charged in federal court with the murders. Copyright (c) 1998, St. Louis Post-Dispatch --- In taberna mori Ut sint vina proxima Morientis ori. -- The Archpoet, 12th Century Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Presidential Scandals in U.S. History
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, I cannot get that URL because of my antique computer but some might be interested that there are presidential scandals that weren't. Some examples: - Eishenhower's biographer was on television saying the story about Eisenhower's affair with his military chauffeur was no more than the usual gossip. There was no known truth to the affair. It is repeated daily as a known fact. - Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child probably wasn't even his. I have mentioned the story too many times to recount it here. - Thomas Jefferson's black mistress was likely the invention of political enemies. The early campaigns were not the namby-pamby affairs they are today. Royalty was not in style. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: i know that you are interested in history and thought you might find this good. I did. :) http://www.msnbc.com/modules/timeagain_scandal/default.htm Sue -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Will Jones appeal? Wont she? So what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One thing that worries me from a justice point of view, is that with all this mud slinging going on how is Clinton supposed to get a fair trial? All this media coverage must be making it impossible for a fair case to be heard. How do you find an impartial judge and jury? Steve Actually, Steve, Clinton has always had all the advantages. Any corporation, university, public office head would have already been long gone from office instead of being the object of great popularity. A local politician was prosecuted for less. And a federal judge found (for a 2nd time) that Clinton was above being tried. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI An Older Case of Sexual Abuse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Vi, Actually the appeals courts reversing the judge's conviction because he couldn't know that what he was doing was illegal was overturned by the Supreme Court sending him back to prison as a bit too inventive. The judge is back in prison after fleeing to Mexico. The prosecution was based on a novel civil rights interpretation to put him in federal court. There was no chance of convicting him in a local court as should be obvious from the appeals court's weird decision. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Kathy, This case is a travesty of justice, enough to make strong men weep. One of this creep's favorite MOs was to suddenly position himself in front of a female sitting facing his desk in chambers. He would unzip his pants and before she could withdraw or stand up with the intention of getting away from him, he would force her face into his crotch. He was no respecter of persons or decorum and would assault female perfect strangers. Surely the legislature will act to restore the sentence and put him in prison where he belongs for the rest of his rotten life. Vi __ You wrote: sexual abuse is an infringement of "bodily integrity" -- and it will no longer be relegated to the backrooms and good old boys at the state levels nor allowed to be swept under the statehouse rugs simply to protect a few men who do not understand or have forgotten that wearing a black robe or a uniform is not a license for abuse. _ 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Clinton Brings Peace to N. Ireland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't recall the newspapers demanding that the U.S. recognize the IRA - oops, I mean Sinn Fein, Ron. I don't particularly care what the newspapers say. "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know if Steve will agree but I don't think any one man is more responsible for a peace settlement, and hopefully peace, than Clinton. Terry See, Bill, even Terry is reading the same newspapers as I am. Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI The Dreaded Anthrax Bacillus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have not heard much about the "world-wide threat of biological warfare" since the UN was granted permission to inspect Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction". Finding none, the UN has left and is regrouping. I wonder what their next step will be? Look where the light is better, Ron. :-} I don't think the threat of biological warfare is myth. Besides the well-known escape of anthrax in Russia some years ago there was also an island off the coast of Scotland where the damn stuff got away. There are no birds or animals there any longer, no nothing. They say it will likely be safe to return in 200 years when the anthrax will no longer be active in the soil. With ignoramuses like Saddam or religious kooks controlling research into biological warfare the inability to control such weapons is as much a threat as the long-sought biological bombs. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI The Dreaded Anthrax Bacillus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The anthrax was put on that island on purpose the test how persistent anthrax is in soil, it was tested frequently for some years bit now there are sheep living on the island and there fine, the island is still the property of the M.O.D though. Steve Thanks, Steve. I presume it was the cover story that the anthrax got away from the government. It is is not terribly reassuring that an island was contaminated deliberately. Saddam might be even less concerned about how he tested. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ASSAULT? I didn't know you were a witness to any assault! Strong words from a weak mind. Watch it Mac. Where is Ed when we need him :-) Are you going to take that from Mac, Terry? Ron Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that we have the right to know the truth about what is going on in the WH in regards to things like Watergate, White Water, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, etc. But when it comes down to the personal lives of anyone, I don't think so. I certainly don't want anyone to delve into my personal life. But even so, putting that aside, these people are dead. They can't possibly defend themselves. All this does is hurt the survivors. And IMO that is wrong. I doubt many are worried about the feelings of the survivors. The feelings of those harmed by journalists are seldom of the slightest concern. People have been driven to suicide by reporters. William Kennedy Smith's victim, Patricia Bowman, tried to kill herself after her name was revealed along with the most intimate details of her life. Her case was destroyed long before she got to court by the ridicule to which she was subjected. If you heard any journalists saying they were sorry I sure missed it. In a book about Lizzie Borden a writer dug up much new information despite the resistance of institutions which still resented the exposure of a shameful part of their history. Institutional pride is of far more concern than any considerations of personal privacy. People do not hesitate in the slightest to trash those they dislike repeating the grossest and flimsiest rumors as absolute truth while complaining loudly that the most obvious flaws of their heros are just unfounded rumors. I certainly did not approve nor even like Nixon, but even if he had beat Pat, what possible good can it do the country now, or anyone for that matter for it to be brought out now. Sue It could be of aid to understanding the man, the position of women, and certainly be an aid to battered wives. Understand I haven't made the slightest comment on the accusation. I haven't the foggiest notion whether it is true or not though many will immediately take up positions on it. Does it matter that Kennedy had an affair with a mobster's girlfriend? Since Kennedy later made initiatives to try to have the mob perform a hit on Castro I would say it did. The myths of Camelot are best revealed for what they are just as the myths of Vietnam would best be understood rather than just having the old lies repeated. Truman sent the first American soldiers to Vietnam when he supported the French overthrow of Ho Chi Minh's newly established republic after the war. Kennedy campaigned for a more active American participation (Eisenhower had resisted the demands for a more active American participation by Nixon and John Foster Dulles) and devised the Special Forces for combatting guerilla forces with counter-terrorism. The war in Vietnam owes its genesis and main impetus to these two men despite all the lies. Truman's ignorance combined with Kennedy's impulsive bravado gave us the mess that cost so many lives. Maybe if people realized it was the personal failings of the men most responsible that gave us the Vietnam War, they would be less casual about those they choose to represent them. Intelligence and knowledge have long been a particular handicap to gaining elective office. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People do not hesitate in the slightest to trash those they dislike repeating the grossest and flimsiest rumors as absolute truth while complaining loudly that the most obvious flaws of their heros are just unfounded rumors. It seems to me you are doing quite a bit of trash talking and repeating thegrossest and flimsiet rumors as the truth yourself. ...Mac Have a good day, Mac. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, (I have no idea if Nixon beat his wife or not per the title of this thread.) But responding to your question, if history has any meaning the bad as well as the good needs to be known. In the future people will deny they knew about the corruption in this administration just as people closed their eyes to that in the Kennedy administration. Once when Kennedy was asked about the unfairness of the draft, he said, "Life isn't fair." When life got a little fairer and the sons of the well-to-do were finally threatened by the draft, the awful war in Vietnam Kennedy was most responsible for ended. The loss of 50,000 young American men in Vietnam isn't unrelated to Kennedy's contempt for the lower classes as well as for the women he used like disposables. Often innocents get hurt but Caroline and John Kennedy, Jr. are adults and are not implicated in any way in their father's actions. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: What I don't understand about these stories is what good do they do. The people who they are written about are dead, and can't defend themselves. And the children such as John Jr. Caroline, (his Kennedy book) Trisha, and Julie are still alive to be hurt by them. Certainly they aren't a part of the history that we need to know. Sue Would it were still so. Doc -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI U.S. Bans Foreign Guns Permanently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What was the NRA's position on this do you know. And if they wanted them imported, why? Sue Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the NRA oppose all controls on the import, sale and use of guns? Ron The NRA does not seem overly enthusiastic in having guns used to rob banks and shoot cops but outside of that you are correct. Fans of G. Gordon Liddy and likeminded sort seem enthusiastic about the second but that is probably not the official position of the NRA. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Reply from Iacono on the polygraph survey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, Prof. Iacono claims that his survey and the Gallup survey had nearly identical results while Honts' survey was significantly different, probably because of a poor response. Yet the Gallup survey found confidence in polygraph results among the best-informed respondents. But Iacono claims to have found the exact reverse: results "were not significantly different from those of less well informed respondents for almost all of the questions, including the one about which of the 4 statements 'best describes your own opinion of polygraph test interpretations' that was asked on all three surveys." Prof. Iacono did not say the Gallup survey misrepresented the findings or that Honts misrepresented the Gallup survey. It appears Prof. Honts would have found that OJ passed his polygraph. I find it strange that Prof. Iacono lays down conditions for sharing his research data that includes requiring that Honts go through a committee at the university. Was he afraid his data would be stolen? Since he had the original it could not be misrepresented for long. No one can argue that leaving Honts off his survey would have an appreciable effect on the accuracy of the survey but that is the only statement that Prof. Iacono makes that is not very questionable. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi all I promise to let you know what Iacono replied if he did. Here it is verbatim, I copied it and insert his reply. (Aren't you proud of me Kathy). Happy reading!! jackief William G. Iacono wrote: Thanks for sending me the info on Honts criticisms of our work. The criticisms are without merit and hardly deserve acknowledgement, and I don't have time to point out why all of them are off base. But consider the following... In the published account of the survey (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997), we point out that because the survey was prepared for a book chapter that Raskin, Honts and Kircher as well as Iacono and Lykken were contributing to, we eliminated ourselves as well as them from the survey pool (presumably our opinions were well represented in our contributions to this book). Since there were almost 200 hundred respondents to the survey, it is not possible for the elimination of ourselves or them to have had any significant effect on the outcome. Second, we agreed to share the data with Honts and Amato provided certain conditions were met, such as there having their request reviewed by their university IRB (the Board that approves research with humans as meeting ethical standards). Apparently they didn't like the conditions. Third, when we examined the results of our survey for just well informed respondents, the results were not significantly different from those of less well informed respondents for almost all of the questions, including the one about which of the 4 statements "best describes your own opinion of polygraph test interpretations" that was asked on all three surveys. In the Gallup survey, comparing more informed to less informed respondents also produced no significant differences as a result of how informed respondents were. Only the Amato and Honts survey, to which only a third of those polled responded, found a difference between more and less informed respondents. This response anomaly is most likely due to their having a sample that is not comparable to those in the other two surveys because it is not representative. I hope this information is useful to you. -- 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: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to testify - and do so. She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury. But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you? Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell me what other possible reason there was for her actions. although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I have seen two. I have posted a description of the horrendous conditions under which she has been held. I don't know where you got your information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was to tell the story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to testify the way he wanted. This is pure bull. What sort of tyranny do you suppose we live in? In fact Starr could offer inducements to testify as Susan still has a little matter of embezzlement hanging over her plus remaining time from her Whitewater conviction. McDougal was jailed for contempt of court. It was used only as a means of compelling testimony. It could never be used to force perjury. She said if she did that and testified the way Starr wanted the story that she would be open to perjury, not open to perjury for telling the truth. She has said over and over that Starr would charge her with perjury if she told the truth. There is no way anyone can be held in jail for not telling a story a prosecutor wants them to tell. She could, of course, be prosecuted for lying even if she told the truth. But even if that were true and she were convicted the punishment would be less than what she has already suffered for refusing to testify at all. Hi Sue: I don't think Susan can do anything as she was a witness for Whitewater, I think. Did she have anything to do with the Paula Jones fiasco? jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what Starr wanted her to say, Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to testify - and do so. She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury. But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you? Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell me what other possible reason there was for her actions. although she did say over and over that she didn't know of any wrong doing. I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :) Sue 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: LI Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, I dug up a little more information on America killing those who commit crimes before their 18th birthday and included the mentally feeble who are not adult in their ability to think. The kids, like all those awaiting the death penalty in the U.S., have to wait a lengthy period before the sentence is actually carried out. If you put puppies in cages until they became dogs and then kicked them to death, it is wrong to say you are kicking puppies to death I suppose. With it understood that "killing kids" means killing those who commit crimes under 18 I offer the following: From http://www.ncadp.org/facts.html [This is an outfit lobbying against the death penalty] --- The U.S. leads the world in killing kids Since 1990, only 6 countries have executed people for crimes they committed as children: Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran... and the United States. The U.S. has executed more children than any of the other countries. Every major international human rights treaty expressly prohibits executing people for crimes committed before the age of 18. 160 children have been sentenced to death in the U.S. since 1973. Government electrocution, gassing and lethal injecting of kids doubled in the last decade. There's no limit to how low we can go The US Supreme Court has ruled that the execution of children as young as 16 is not "cruel and unusual" punishment. It has yet to make a definitive statement about children under 16. Of the 38 states with the death penalty: 13 have set the minimum age for death at 18; 4 states set the minimum at 17; 9 set it at 16; 12 have no minimum age. In 1996, Mississippi prosecutors sought the death penalty for juveniles as young as 13 years of age. Most often the US kills children of color 2 out of 3 children sent to death row are people of color. Historically, 2 out of 3 people executed for crimes they committed as children have been African American. During this century, the ratio has jumped to 3 out of 4. Of the nine girls executed in US history, 8 were Black and 1 was American Indian. The youngest person executed since WWII in the US was George Stinney, a 14 year-old black boy who was so small his mask fell off while he was being electrocuted by the state of South Carolina. The Federal Government has imposed the death penalty against American Indian children for crimes they committed as young as 10-years-old. Mental Competency and the Death Penalty Over the past thirty years the number of mentally incompetent people being executed has increased steadily. A person who suffers from mental retardation typically has a below average intellect and lacks the kind of adaptive behavior which normally develops during childhood. Currently, there are more than 300 people on death row know to have mental retardation. Some estimates say that 10% of the death row population may be afflicted with mental retardation. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, thirty-one people with metal retardation have been executed in twelve different states.. Of the 31 mentally retarded people executed since 1976, 19 of them have been within the past five years. Executing the mentally incompetent does not serve justice. In 1989, the Supreme Court admitted that "mental retardation is a factor that may wel lessen a defendant's culpability for a capital offense." That same year, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution in which they stated that no one with mental retardation should be sentenced to to death or executed because to do so would violate contemporary standards of decency. Defendents with mental incompetency are unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Generally, people suffering from mental retardation are eager to please others. This means that they will often answer yes to questions even when they don't fully understand what they are being asked. Jerome Bowden did sign a statement confessing to murder, but only because the police told him it would be to his benfit. It was on the sole basis of this confession, would Jerome could not even read, that he was convicted and executed by the state of Georgia. Virginia executed Morris Odell Mason, who had been diagnosed as mentally retarded, in 1985. On his way to the execution chamber, he told another inmate, "When I get back, I'm gonna show him how I can play basketball as good as he can." Mason was 32 at the time of his death and clearly did not understand his impending fate. -- from "Time:" "The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that executes juvenile offenders: criminals whose alleged offenses were committed when they were under the age of 18. There are only six countries in the world that are known to have executed juvenile offenders in the '90s: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria,
Re: LI Incest survivors seek protection
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, This is one of the best kept secrets of child abuse. Child Abuse, Inc., would rather not talk about the abuse they cause children to be subjected to. Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All I can say is it's about damn time! Incest survivors have urged California legislators to pass legal protections for children who are placed in their abusers' custody. The Incest Survivors Speakers Bureau of Yolo County held a statehouse news conference on the problem today and promoted legislation addressing it. Shari Karney, a victim's rights attorney whose own incest story was portrayed in an NBC TV movie, ``Shattered Trust,'' said she's been unable to save a single child from sexual abuse -- despite hundreds of calls from distraught mothers. Says Karney: ``The judge in case after case has sent the child back into the hands of the abuser.'' Mothers told of courts awarding children to abusive fathers and other relatives despite evidence that they had sexually assaulted them. Shira Dee of Los Banos told UPI that authorities confirmed abuse against her 4- and 3-year-old daughters in 1993, but she lost them to her ex-husband a few years later after she refused to allow unsupervised visits -- despite a hospital's finding that they'd been raped. A bill introduced by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, would require perpetrators in court cases to prove a youngster would be safe in his care -- if there's evidence of child sexual abuse against him. Child advocates also are backing a proposal to have judges undergo training on the incest issue. -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Noe: Update
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, Child Abuse, Inc., seems to be whipping up another wave of hysteria since the last one about the imaginary wholesale sexual abuse of children in nursery schools ebbed. The parents of children who die of SIDS are particularly vulnerable. SIDS like other diseases, notably multiple sclerosis, is a disease of exclusion. The cause has never been found though there are numerous theories. That homicides have been attributed to SIDS should go without saying but the new wave of claims is going far beyond that, calling into question even the existence of SIDS. Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue :) You did a message recently on this case here's the latest I saw: A lawyer says police used fear and force to make his client, 69-year-old Marie Noe, sign a confession that reportedly says she used a pillow to smother at least five of her 10 children -- all of whom died as infants. Prosecutors would not comment on the confession reported in the Philadelphia Daily News but confirmed they are investigating the tragic string of baby deaths that took place over 30 years ago. Lawyer David Rudenstein says Marie and Arthur Noe were brought in for questioning on March 25 by police following the publication of an article in Philadelphia magazine that suggested foul play was involved in the deaths. The article concluded the case would only solved by a confession. Rudenstein says Marie, who has only a fifth-grade education, was held against her will, even though she complained of headaches and has a history of migraines and blackouts. He says: ``She was told she was not allowed to leave until she had signed some papers. She would have signed a peace of paper saying she was the killer of Dr. King if that's what it took to leave.'' Each of the Noes' 10 children died between 1949 and 1968. One died shortly after birth, another was stillborn, and the rest died at home before they reached 15 months. Life Magazine did an article in 1962 that portrayed the Noe children as victims of crib death, known also as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or SIDS. However, a number of officials connected with the Noe case tell Philadelphia magazine they suspected foul play in the deaths. Rudenstein says that every expert has an opinion, but there has never been any solid evidence against Maria Noe. He also cast doubt on the reports of her confession, saying, ``I don't know about other cities, but in Philadelphia they don't let people go after they confess to five murders.'' -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Noe: Update
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, In fact every case of SIDS is "checked into." Autopsies in cases of such deaths are routine. More "checking into" may be indicated at times no doubt. But considering every parent who has a crib death a likely murderer is not a great idea. Multiple SIDS deaths are not unknown. It took a very long time to get over the belief that all parents of such infants were killers. It is not great to take a backward step. Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry :) I'm all against hysteria of course :) Yet we also can't ignore something that is staring you right in the face, it's rare matterfact unheard of having 8 kids in the same family die from SIDS, that just doesn't happen Terry. With medical science so improved from when the children originally died they should be able to hopefully come up with some answers at least I hope so. Yet to not investigate and make sure these were SIDS deaths and not homicide would be a crime against the babies that died IMHO. I do believe there is such a thing as SIDs, but basically all I'm saying there is that sometimes babies die and we don't know why, yet to have more than two die in one family, that is questionable and that should be checked into. For all we know it could be something that was in the house that caused the deaths, and by that I'm not talking about the parents but some sort of chemical that they breathed in, we just don't know. And for all the parent's know it's quite possible this investigation may finally put to end the talk about their kids and how they died. If they are truly innocent as they claim, don't you think they would want that? I do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, Child Abuse, Inc., seems to be whipping up another wave of hysteria since the last one about the imaginary wholesale sexual abuse of children in nursery schools ebbed. The parents of children who die of SIDS are particularly vulnerable. SIDS like other diseases, notably multiple sclerosis, is a disease of exclusion. The cause has never been found though there are numerous theories. That homicides have been attributed to SIDS should go without saying but the new wave of claims is going far beyond that, calling into question even the existence of SIDS. -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that we not speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew Cunanan a serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer it is idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never tried and convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath about a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue. How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the answers? I congratulate you on 100%. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh Terry Then, Thomas really is only a liar in your eyes, because you feel the "truth" is on Anita's side. Therefore, because you believe he is a liar, you feel free to call him a perjuror, despite the fact he has not been charged with it according to what you say. Before you jump up and down, I felt Anita was telling the truth and believed her, but that still does not give me or anyone the right to call him a perjuror if he wasn't convicted of perjury in a court of law--liar, a despicable person, yes, but not a perjuror. When you discuss a case, despite the verdict, an unbiased observer (as you put it) must stay objective and try to examine why that verdict was reached. That isn't easy, I admit, for most people to do and it sure don't make for winning popularity contests : ). So really in the end, what this boils down to is that you believe he is a liar and that makes it o.k. to state he is a perjuror. BTW, I flunked your test. The polygraph has less accuracy in detecting "truth" (as you call it) with innocent people. Cheers jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [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 Really, Jackie? It is obvious to any unbiased observer, which I am not. I have never had anything but contempt for the toady that was put in charge of EEO by Reagan essentially to dismantle its operation nor for the intellectual flyweight who was unable to express the slightest defense of his "natural law" philosophy. But that has nothing whatever to do with his guilt in the matter. When two people tell directly opposing stories, when the normal human frailties of forgetfulness and imagination are not a factor, one must choose which to believe if there is to be any judgment of truth at all. It is rather easy to choose which one is most likely telling the truth when one is willing to take a polygraph and the other is not even independent of the results. But that is only a small part of the story. Anita Hill had told her story to others long before she was called upon to tell her story in public. She testified unwillingly. Anita Hill had to undergo the withering attack all women who have suffered from the sexual libido of men who cannot control their urges. She was called a sexually-repressed man-hungry lesbian all at once by the mentally-challenged Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. (No, Jackie, not in those words. There was that stuff coming in over the transom as the good senator from Wyoming liked to say.) David Brock, the recently canonized convert from his former rightwing hatchetman status, says everything is still all true. That even includes the silly story of the pubic hair on the homework paper of a student, though the student now says it was a hoax. Justice Thomas let his supporters do their work and remained silent. He refused to discuss anything, screaming only of another half-vast conspiracy. His silence speaks volumes just as it does these days in his robes on his throne in his kingdom. It is an obscenity this caricature sits in the seat of the magnificent Thurgood Marshall. Let me give you some homework, Jackie. You can do it silently. The test has only two questions and I will bet you or anyone else can get the answers. 1. A special prosecutor was appointed to find out which miscreants leaked the news of Anita Hill that led to the Thomas-Hill hearings. Did the honorable Democratic senators offer to take a polygraph as proposed by the special prosecutor so he could complete his investigation? Why or why not? 2. A coal miner in Virginia (Roger Coleman, I think) was convicted of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law and condemned to death. He is often cited as one of those most likely to be innocent. He steadfastly refused a lie detector test until the eve of his execution. What was the result of his polygraph? See how easy the test was. Bet you got all the right answers. 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:
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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? Mornin' Terry, I think you need to read the decision. ...Mac Hi Mac, Here I will read it to you. This is extracted from the decision: "In addressing the issues in this case, the Court has viewed the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and given her the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences, which is required at this stage of the proceedings." Mornin', That does nothing to support your claim. There is nothing in her decision that warrants a charge of prejudice. ...Mac Hi Mac, That says the judge had to base her decision on whatever was presented by Paula Jones as factual. She determined that the actions of Clinton described by Jones were not outrageous conduct. Call it as you will. I call Wright's decision deeply prejudiced. It was more than "boorish and offensive" conduct when done by an employer against an employee. It was up to Judge Wright to determine whether such conduct constituted an actionable tort. It was not up to her to determine the truth of the charges. She decided a jury had no right to determine that because the conduct was not sufficiently gross to be actionable if it was precisely as described. Remember, Mac, you charged me with not reading the decision. Maybe you should look it over. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
[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
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments about the nature of truth when stating facts. 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. Your modesty is enchanting but your flawless performance on the test has to be acknowledged by your admission you read it. We know this with Cartesian certainty because it is obvious you think despite your efforts to obscure that fact. 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. jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that we not speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew Cunanan a serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer it is idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never tried and convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath about a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue. How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the answers? I congratulate you on 100%. Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 -- 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: LI Re: Another Victim of the VRWC
[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. 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
LI A Little Known Fact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Clinton's Personal Responsibility Act (welfare reform) allocates $10 million ffor "abstinence education." Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Another Black Widow On Death Row
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy Haney sits on death row in Wetumpka, Alabama, convicted in 1988 of murdering her husband, who she says routinely beat her and her children. Women who kill an abusive spouse almost never receive the death penalty. But Haney's defense was not all it might have been: one of her attorneys, for instance, came to court so drunk that the judge halted the proceedings and sent the man to jail overnight. When the trial resumed the next day, Haney was convicted and sentenced to die. [The "Time" reporter did not mention that this Judy did not do her own killing. Maybe that was her mistake besides having a drunk lawyer.] Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie, You are wrong. As Justice Stevens noted in his lone dissent the courts are very selective in their willingness to use polygraph results. Justice Thomas wrote the decision. He was smart enough to avoid the lie detector. Anita Hill passed hers. 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 VBG, but it seems the Supreme court is not willing to accept the idea that the polygraph is admissible. Am I correct in this?? jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable: The scientific community and the state and federal courts are extremely polarized on the matter. Pp. 4-9. (b) Rule 707 does not implicate a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused to raise a constitutional concern under this Court's precedents. The three cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock, supra, at 57, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, and Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302-303, do not support a right to introduce polygraph evidence, even in very narrow circumstances. The exclusions of evidence there declared unconstitutional significantly undermined fundamental elements of the accused's defense. Such is not the case here, where the court members heard all the relevant details of the charged offense from respondent's perspective, and Rule 707 did not preclude him from introducing any factual evidence, but merely barred him from introducing expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility. Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Rock, supra, at 52, Rule 707 did not prohibit respondent from testifying on his own behalf; he freely exercised his choice to convey his version of the facts at trial. Pp. 11-14. THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II- C, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and SOUTER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. 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 -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
[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 Really, Jackie? It is obvious to any unbiased observer, which I am not. I have never had anything but contempt for the toady that was put in charge of EEO by Reagan essentially to dismantle its operation nor for the intellectual flyweight who was unable to express the slightest defense of his "natural law" philosophy. But that has nothing whatever to do with his guilt in the matter. When two people tell directly opposing stories, when the normal human frailties of forgetfulness and imagination are not a factor, one must choose which to believe if there is to be any judgment of truth at all. It is rather easy to choose which one is most likely telling the truth when one is willing to take a polygraph and the other is not even independent of the results. But that is only a small part of the story. Anita Hill had told her story to others long before she was called upon to tell her story in public. She testified unwillingly. Anita Hill had to undergo the withering attack all women who have suffered from the sexual libido of men who cannot control their urges. She was called a sexually-repressed man-hungry lesbian all at once by the mentally-challenged Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. (No, Jackie, not in those words. There was that stuff coming in over the transom as the good senator from Wyoming liked to say.) David Brock, the recently canonized convert from his former rightwing hatchetman status, says everything is still all true. That even includes the silly story of the pubic hair on the homework paper of a student, though the student now says it was a hoax. Justice Thomas let his supporters do their work and remained silent. He refused to discuss anything, screaming only of another half-vast conspiracy. His silence speaks volumes just as it does these days in his robes on his throne in his kingdom. It is an obscenity this caricature sits in the seat of the magnificent Thurgood Marshall. Let me give you some homework, Jackie. You can do it silently. The test has only two questions and I will bet you or anyone else can get the answers. 1. A special prosecutor was appointed to find out which miscreants leaked the news of Anita Hill that led to the Thomas-Hill hearings. Did the honorable Democratic senators offer to take a polygraph as proposed by the special prosecutor so he could complete his investigation? Why or why not? 2. A coal miner in Virginia (Roger Coleman, I think) was convicted of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law and condemned to death. He is often cited as one of those most likely to be innocent. He steadfastly refused a lie detector test until the eve of his execution. What was the result of his polygraph? See how easy the test was. Bet you got all the right answers. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Bill Maher Sez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maher says he has invited the 4% of the population that think they have lower morals than Clinton to be on his show. Female I presume. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Yes, Sooz, We Do Kill Kids
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry IMHO this is a post done by a desperate person, as everyone knows the DP and the laws surrounding it have all changed. The laws I gave you were the most recent I found. I will be glad for any updates. It's pretty pathetic when you have to go back over 50 years to support your argument. If you want to seriously discuss this issue at least use the laws and guidelines we're under now. It would be like me talking about cruel and unusual punishment that we submit prisoners to and using the example of the men sentenced to work on slave ships. I would be laughed at for that type of reasoning. There isn't a comparison, just as your assertion that the U.S. kills kids under the DP in the US and current sentencing guidelines show that not to be true. Show me one person in the US who was under the age of 18 that was executed after 1972. To save you some time I'll let you know right now, you won't be able to, since it hasn't happened. Yet you can try to find someone. If a 16-year-old commits a murder and is sentenced to die in a subsequent trial, you may find comfort in his sitting in prison for a decade or two while he waits for his death sentence to be carried out. My interpretation is that we kill kids, one of only 6 countries that do. There are currently a number of men sitting on death row for murders committed when they were juveniles. Use current information for a current debate. Comparing the 1940's and the 1990's is ridiculous to me. I remember the 1940's quite well. Slave ships are before my time. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - June 16, 1944: George Stinney Jr. (14) is executed in South Carolina's electric chair. He was only 5'-1" tall and weighed 95 pounds. A local paper reported that the guards had difficulties strapping him onto the chair and attaching the electrodes. --- Since 1990 only five countries including the United States have sentenced those convicted of crimes when they were minors to death. With appeals you are correct that 16- and 17-year-olds are likely to mature before we execute them. No minimum age: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington Minimum age 14: Arkansas Minimum age 15: Louisiana, Virginia Minimum age 16: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming Minimum age 17: Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas Total: 25 states allow executions for juvenile offenses (Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau) [I have no explanation for the reason the 11- and 13-year-olds in Jonesboro cannot be tried as adults according to news reports. There may have been changes in the law since the above data was compiled.] Damien Echols was 17 years old when he supposedly participated in the murder of three small boys. He was convicted in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a wave of hysteria over satanic cults with laughable evidence. In his case some prison guards were actually fired for permitting his daily sodomization by another prisoner on death row over a period of weeks. His prospects for eventual exoneration are quite guarded under current rules for appeals. 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 -- 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 Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Sometimes indifference means death for another
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heroism is probably beyond most of us, at least in the heat of the moment. But I don't see that much heroism required for a 911 call. And in the days when Kitty Genovese was being killed, 911 didn't even have caller ID so they had no way of identifying who called. I don't know if they do everywhere now -- around here they do. Doc But, Doc, on those terms naturally it takes no courage. So why didn't somebody call 911? Is there something vastly different with those people than all the rest of us? From what I heard the building where people watched the cabdriver being beaten and stuffed in the trunk was an area terrorized by crime. People living under such conditions learn to look the other way. That's no excuse, just an observation. There are also the incredible cases where people are attacked in broad daylight in a crowd of ordinary people. People wait for a leader to do something. And sometimes there is none. Of course, you and I are different. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Welcome Jamez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamez) writes: Thank you Kathy for your warm welcome! As a senior in high school, I am very interested in law, and I figured this particular newsgroup will get me in touch with some of the law issues going on in our society today. Since I am an amateur at responding to such issues, it will take some time to get used to the reading, and of course writing out my opinions clearly and concisely. So just try to bare with my incompetence! :) Glad to have you here, Jamez, and try to forgive all the self-important blather by those of us that pretend we know something. You write plainly and forcefully. Maybe you can teach the rest of us by example. :-} Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Jones' Attorneys Allege Cover-Up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I really cannot understand this, Stark his cronies seem to be getting more and more desperate as time goes on. The only thing I can see coming form this is either he's guilty and some will chastise him (and nothing will come of it) him or he's innocent and he's lost alot of his status around the world because of this case. Steve Yeah, right. Real innocent. I haven't the vaguest idea if Clinton is a rapist. At least in the press reports the attorney for the woman who was supposedly raped was not exactly claiming that her friends had lied. Wouldn't you think that would be the minimum that a lawyer would say? Survival of Clinton, prayed for by every Republican who wishes the best for his party, is far from assured. He/She is perhaps not totally on the side of Clinton despite all the prayer breakfasts. If it's a She, Clinton is in big trouble. Jones' lawyers are just getting the natural bonuses from the stupidity of the Rhodes scholar from Arkansas who thought it was wise to attack his victim. 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
