At 7:43 PM -0800 9/21/98, Suzanne wrote:
>>At 5:55 PM -0500 10/30/98, Brett Lorenzen wrote:
>>
>>>In the legal world, if Paula Jone's lawyers weren't smart enough to
>>>explicitly list fellatio as "sex" during that case....
>
>Kathy wrote:
>
>>YES -- and her case was dismissed unilaterally by the judge -- so this
>>entire crap is based on shifting sands.
>
>Hold it, not so fast. I was just reading the other day that Jone's lawyers
>have asked the judge who threw out the case to consider re-opening the case
>or holding Clinton in contempt. Apparently there was a footnote in her
>first judgement that left open this possibility, so it's not so cut and
>dried as being "dismissed unilaterally."
hmmm... what I read was an "appeal" -- which is normally to a "higher"
court. and of course it's being appealed. the people paying her bills have
endless pockets.
have asked for attribution for the below:
QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of sex
acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the media
with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming social
value under the public's 'right to know'."
-- Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
