LI Re: Another Victim of the VRWC

1998-04-03 Thread William J. Foristal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:


Hi Jackie,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!  I believe that was the sound of
another slam dunk I just heard. :)

Bill


On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:23:24 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Poor Terry

I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision 
reached by
Judge Wright.  I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both 
Republican and
Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal 
beagles, Paula did
not have a case.  Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was 
already defined in
the law and she followed the law.

Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the 
forest for the
trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use 
in making her
decision.  The part that led to the decision was the failure to 
provide evidence
that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect.  There are 
two parts to
the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards.  The 
act and the
consequences of the act.  In this case, she did not meet the standards 
set out in
law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act.Wright has to 
follow the
legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you or 
others decide
is the accurate decision.  If you know anything about law then you 
know that.  In
this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which 
she was correct
in doing.

jackief

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Oh Jackie,

 Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment.  She 
did not
 decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description of
 Clinton's conduct.
 Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as 
presumed
 true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not 
"outrageous"

 If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had 
to face
 removal from office and criminal prosecution.  If he had the same 
supporters
 Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have planned 
a
 bright future.
 Best, Terry

 "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law"  - The Devil's 
Dictionary

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective

I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"



Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues


_
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Re: Another Victim of the VRWC

1998-04-03 Thread Jackie Fellows

Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Bill

Or is it that an N of 1 suffices for evidence in all cases?  Excuse me, an N
of 2.

jackief

William J. Foristal wrote:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:

 Hi Jackie,

 Sometimes the air only SEEMS to smell better to people because they have
 gotten used to the stench. BG  And, of course, the smell of ANY air not
 like their own tends to make the real smellers nervous.

 Bill





Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Re: Another Victim of the VRWC

1998-04-02 Thread hallinan

[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