LI p/Dr.L.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found another one. :) http://www.alllaw.com/index.html 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
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
Re: LI Black Widow Executed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy It appears that extralegal factors will always make a difference in who is a "worthy" person to argue they should be saved. You have hit on two important ones, IMO. jackief Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So where's the outrage? Where was the press? Why no interviews on TV? This lady had the same criteria as Tucker did, oh except for one thing she wasn't as young or as pretty. Is that what a women needs to get those against the death penalty to notice her? I'm sure some will disagree with me strongly, but in this case the actions of the silent speak a lot louder than the words of those after the fact. Fifty-four-year-old Judy Buenoano, known as the "Black Widow," was executed in Florida's electric chair Monday morning for poisoning her husband in 1971. "The prisoner was pronounced dead at 7:13 a.m. EST (1213 GMT)," said Rhonda Horler, a prison spokeswoman who witnessed the execution. "She made no final statement." Buenoano, who was given the nickname by a Florida prosecutor who said she preyed off her mates and her young, was the first woman executed in Florida since 1848, and the third executed in the United States since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. -- 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 -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI marijuana legalization thing in the UK?
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Vi And for polydrug users alcohol is always one of the drugs in the 200 women that have gone through the treatment process in the program I am familiar with. And people who have tried the other hard drugs, often quit them but stay with the alcohol. Their histories also reveal that alcohol was often used before m.j. or the so-called hard drugs. In addition 99 percent of them smoke. These trends appear to be similar to trends nationwide in the research I have done for the program. So which drug is the most likely to lead to hard drug use?? jackief Viola Provenzano wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Steve and Doc, It might be useful to take surveys of just how many cocaine and heroin addicts smoked cannabis prior to their voyage into the harder stuff. Granted it can be claimed that smoking pot is an introduction into the drug world, but so is filling and taking a doctor's prescription, and I see no other connection. Like every other method of self-destruction, the harder drugs are a matter of individual choice. Vi ___ Steve wrote: . . ."My son is a heroin addict, and it has devastated our family and so many other families, and it all started through the use of soft drugs like cannabis.". . . _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Surveys of drug use was Re: LI marijuana legalization thing in the UK?
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc and Vi Don't know how much help this is, but in reading the history drug use of the women in my files for the program, the majority of women have used in their lifetime alcohol and/or marijuana. There are about 5 percent of the 200+ women who have used hard drugs in their lifetime. About 2% are using hard drugs on entrance and those who are polydrug users when they enter all use alcohol. Granted there is a gender bias here, but I only have women in the study, sorry. Of course, like doc says, they probaby all drank milk as children too. If you like when I submit the quarterly summary, I can ask the program director if they are seeing similar patterns in hard drug, m.j. and alcohol use in their male population. jackief Viola Provenzano wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: H i Doc, Amen! Your post should be sent to the head of the DEA. Vi __ You wrote: . . .The real study would be one to find out how many pot users go on to use hard drugs, not the other way around. Doc _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI A couple of little jokes for mundane monday......................
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy Thanks for the help. I have copied the directions off and pasted them on my board. So simple--oh well, I guess it is the simple things that throw me, as well as the difficult things : ). I guess I tend to agree more with you about the geographic location being the same, at least in the few cases I have read. But, I do like the fact that he feels that LE should share information in a more consistent fashion. jackief -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I don't receive spam mail on this server like I did in Fargo-Moorhead. Maybe it is the size of the town in my case--spammers would go broke in Spamtown, USA. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Ron, Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid ads that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I get a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:19:12 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hopefully more states will follow this route. I tlooks like I could get rich quickly just reporting the Spam that arrives in my AOL account daily. Ron Locke signs `spam' bill; it's first such law in nation by Peter Lewis Seattle Times staff reporter Gov. Gary Locke yesterday signed into law a bill aimed at curbing unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail, popularly known as spam. As a result, Washington becomes the first state in the nation to have passed legislation that will curb, if not eliminate, what many e-mail users consider to be an annoyance or worse, according to California lawyer David Kramer. A recognized expert on Internet e-mail and legislative efforts to control it, Kramer has testified before a state House committee in favor of a tougher version of Washington's anti-spam bill. He also has collaborated on bills proposed in Congress and in four other states. The new law, which will take effect in 90 days, makes it a violation for spammers to send e-mail messages that hide their point of origin, mask the transmission path, or contain misleading information in the message's subject line. Spam, named after the often-derided Hormel meat product, usually contain such false information in their "headers," or address fields, and promote get-rich-quick schemes, miracle health cures or explicit pornographic material. The new law bans both sending e-mail with such deceptive header information from computers located in Washington, and sending such e-mail to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident. It puts the burden on the sender to find out whether the intended recipient lives in Washington. Individuals who receive such e-mail could collect up to $500 per violation; Internet service providers, the companies that provide computer users access to the Internet, could receive up to $1,000. Assistant State Attorney General Paula Selis yesterday said the state will aggressively enforce the new law, but she declined to elaborate, saying her office generally doesn't like to disclose its enforcement strategies. She called the new law "better than nothing." With the support of the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers (WAISP), Selis had drafted a more vigorous law that would have flatly banned sending spam - unless there was an existing relationship between the sender and the recipient, or the recipient had requested or consented to receive it. But powerful interests, including the Direct Marketing Association and Microsoft, testified against that version of the bill. Microsoft lobbyist Deborah Brunton said her company is "very concerned about unsolicited junk e-mail, but we also are a company that used legitimate e-mail practices to reach out to our customers." She said Microsoft was concerned that the bill's original language was ambiguous, and might have prohibited the company from developing new markets. Meanwhile, in his column posted on the Microsoft Web site yesterday, Chairman Bill Gates skewered spam, writing in part: "Wasting somebody else's time strikes me as the height of rudeness. We have only so many hours, and none to waste. That's what makes electronic junk mail and e-mail hoaxes so maddening." The new law also calls for creation of a three-member task force, consisting of two members of the House Energy and Utilities Committee and a person appointed by Locke, to identify technical, legal and cost issues related to spam, and to evaluate whether existing laws are sufficient to cope with it. It sets a Nov. 15 d _ 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] eadline for completion of the report. Meantime, WAISP executive director Gary Gardner said local Internet providers would review the new law when they gather April 17 at Bell Harbor Conference Center on the Seattle waterfront. Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
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
WAS Re: LI marijuana legalization thing in the UK? - Caffeine
Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Speaking of drugs has there been a study of prolonged caffeine abusers? I'm still doing a Access2 database and will need some tomorrow to cover a law assignment :-) Steve "caffeine cool, keep it coming" By the way Doc will you get off my knee I need a refilllol -Original Message- From: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 12:30 PM Subject: Re: LI marijuana legalization thing in the UK? Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Vi And for polydrug users alcohol is always one of the drugs in the 200 women that have gone through the treatment process in the program I am familiar with. And people who have tried the other hard drugs, often quit them but stay with the alcohol. Their histories also reveal that alcohol was often used before m.j. or the so-called hard drugs. In addition 99 percent of them smoke. These trends appear to be similar to trends nationwide in the research I have done for the program. So which drug is the most likely to lead to hard drug use?? jackief Viola Provenzano wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Steve and Doc, It might be useful to take surveys of just how many cocaine and heroin addicts smoked cannabis prior to their voyage into the harder stuff. Granted it can be claimed that smoking pot is an introduction into the drug world, but so is filling and taking a doctor's prescription, and I see no other connection. Like every other method of self-destruction, the harder drugs are a matter of individual choice. Vi ___ Steve wrote: . . ."My son is a heroin addict, and it has devastated our family and so many other families, and it all started through the use of soft drugs like cannabis.". . . _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues 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: Philosophers/ Doc was Re: LI A couple of little jokes for mundane monday...
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 07:07:30 EST, you write: Hi Doc Forgot to ask? Did you know Tony Smith too. He went to Sony and does a lot on 20th century philosophy and feminist philosophy. jackief No. Is "Sony" the same place that I call SUNY -- State Univ of NY? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 07:52:28 EST, you write: 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 Per WashPost this am -- Supreme Court has ruled that states may (not must, but may) refuse to allow polygraph results as proof in court. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI COTD: Sarmento, William
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On November 4, 1987, nine-year-old Frankie Barnes was reported missing when he failed to return from a neighborhood bike ride in Providence, Rhode Island. His bicycle was found two weeks later, concealed in tall grass near an abandoned brewery, less than a half-mile from his home. A month later, on December 14, six-year-old Jason Wolf vanished in Providence, after his mother sent him out to retrieve the daily mail. Teenagers found his body on December 21, two miles from home, discarded in some brush near Mashapaug Pond. An autopsy revealed the cause of death as blows to the head, inflicted with a blunt instrument. Police were still puzzling over the case five days later, when they received an anonymous note in the mail. It read: You will find the little boy by a wooden cross near Tongue Pond. I didn't want to do it. Satan ordered me to. I hope you will kill me, cops, because I don't know why I killed the children. Following the note's instructions, searchers found Frankie Barnes on the northern shoreline of Tongue Pond, his body gashed by multiple stab wounds. An examination of the envelope revealed faint impressions of a man's name, followed by the phrase: "Catch me if you can, ha, ha, ha." Police called on the suspect, and he suggested his name might have been used by an enemy, William Sarmento, who had recently tried to seduce the man's girlfriend. Police were familiar with the 21-year-old Sarmento. In 1985, he pled guilty to assaulting a neighborhood dog catcher and was sentenced to one year's probation. Three days later, he was picked up again, on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon, and he served 20 days in jail for violating his probation. Residents of Frankie Barnes's neighborhood recalled seeing Sarmento in the vicinity, and investigation disclosed that Sarmento was a childhood acquaintance of Jason Wolf's mother. Detectives held a press conference on December 29, 1987, naming Sarmento as their primary suspect in two murders. Later that day, he was seen ducking into a cellar and police were summoned to make the arrest. Held without bond pending psychiatric evaluation, Sarmento is rumored to have confessed to both homicides. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Sometimes indifference means death for another
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have not seen a clarification on this observer apathy story on this list. Apparently at least two people in that Denver apartment called 911 while the beating was going on, and even told the 911 operators that they saw the victim being put in the trunk of a yellow car. The details of these reports were never relayed to the responding police by the 911 operators. Blame the incompetence of the 911 operators, not the apathy of the apartment dwellers. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Annual Internet cleaning
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's that time again! As many of you know, each year the Internet must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The cleaning process, which eliminates dead email and inactive ftp, www and gopher sites, allows for a better working and faster Internet. This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01 a.m.. GMT on April 1 until 12:01 a.m. GMT on April 2 (the time least likely to interfere with ongoing work). During that 24-hour period, five powerful Internet search engines situated around the world will search the Internet and delete any data that they find. In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do the following: 1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their Internet connections. 2. Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the Internet. 3. Disconnect all disks and hard drives from any connections to the Internet. 4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way. We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any inconveniences will be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the Internet, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam. We thank you for your cooperation. Kim Dereksen Network Information Center Network Solutions, Inc. Reston, Virginia http://www.internic.net/ (Remember the date folks :) This was from Randy who own the Humornet ML) -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Gun Ownership As a Deterrent?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, LOL...I used the example of statistics because YOU were accepting statistics to support your point. Now you say we can play the little game of statistics. I think your hypothetical fails in a big way because we are not talking about eliminating all criminal actions of assault nor eliminating all accidental injury/deaths via all weapons. But common sense tells us that murders and accidents WILL decrease if the availability of guns is greatly decreased. Certainly assault weapons and hand guns need to be considered. A total ban for the former and a tight control on the latter. Many people are killed when someone with a gun makes a snap decision under stress or intense anger/emotion. Without the gun, these deaths would be reduced dramatically. Not eliminated but reduced, IMO. Same for accidental deaths. When is the last time you heard of someone being killed accidentally by someone with a knife? Take those two kids in Jonesboro last week. Instead of an arsenal of guns and ammo, give them an arsenal of knives. Do you really think they could have or would have inflicted the same carnage. A gun gives someone a false sense of removal from the killing. And it's so easy to squeeze that trigger. People who have guns in the home have a much higher chance of being injured or killed by a gun. The evidence seems to be quite clear when we compare our crime rate/murder rate with those of other countries that the easy availability of guns DOES have a major effect on our high numbers. We can choose to hide behind hypotheticals of comparisons with deaths by auto accident, non-gun incidents, tobacco, aclohol, drugs, etc. But, IMO, that is simply ducking the issue and is a more dangerous game than playing with statistics. But that is just my opinion. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:54:29 -0500 Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill lets try a hypothetical here, lets say there are no guns in the US but we still have a high murder rate, only the murders are now done with knives, do we then outlaw knife ownership? Then the killers turn to strangulation, do we outlaw anything you can strangle a person with? What if they use poison? Is that then taken out of our country? Do we get rid of all defensive weapons in the US, even to the military because they are now illegal? Where do you stop at Bill? Banning the guns is ineffective we already know that look at DC where your not allowed to own a gun, but look at their murder rate. When are people going to stop placing the blame on a object instead of facing the real problem the people who do these murders? That Bill is the problem I see, it's not the guns it's the people who get the guns and what they do with them. Just because you take away one way to murder doesn't mean murder suddenly stops, people are creative and they always come up with new ways to murder. Look at the case we just followed the Jones case, 4 kids and a mother all stabbed to death, no gun there Bill. Yet they are all still dead. Look at the Simpson case two people killed yet again with a knife. Maybe it's people we should outlaw? Oh I can also say to you Bill crime has gone up in areas where there is a ban on guns how do you explain that? You see I can play the statistic game also. But that's all it is, a little numbers game. William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Kathy, Crime went down in a lot of other areas that did not legalize guns. I wonder how they explain that one. :) Let's face it. We have the highest number of guns per capita than most any other country in the world. And our crime rate (particularly the murder rate) is one of the highest in the world. Especially when you consider crimes committed by citizens against fellow citizens. IMO, anyone who argues that these two things are not related is simply kidding themselves. I'm not saying that total gun control or a ban on gun ownership should be enacted. But I DO think some common sense controls need to be in place. Many of them have been enacted already, but typically due to the effects of a strong gun lobby, the legislation is so watered down by the time it is passed that it has little or no effect. Until we wake up to the real problem we will continue to have incidents like the one in Jonesboro, IMO. -- 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
LI Starr Investigation Cost Tops $35M
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Starr Investigation Cost Tops $35M WASHINGTON (AP) -- The four-year Whitewater investigation had cost taxpayers $35 million by the end of September, an audit of the independent counsel's expenses shows. The General Accounting Office audit shows spending by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr of President Clinton's Whitewater dealings was the most expensive among six independent counsel probes that cost nearly $8 million in the six months ended Sept. 30. Starr has spent more than $29 million and his predecessor, Whitewater special prosecutor Robert Fiske, about $6 million. Starr appears on track to surpass the biggest-spending independent counsel of all, Lawrence Walsh, who ran up a $40 million bill investigating the Iran-Contra arms and money case during the Reagan administration. Starr racked up $3.4 million for salaries, travel, rent and other expenses from March through September. FBI agents working with Starr cost another $485,927 and the Internal Revenue Service spent $67,063 helping him, the GAO found. In January, Starr's probe was expanded to include the Monica Lewinsky matter, pushing the investigation into high gear. Dozens of witnesses have been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, including one from Japan. The next six-month report on independent counsel expenses will be issued in September. Donald C. Smaltz, independent counsel investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, spent $2.5 million from March through September, the GAO said. Espy is charged with accepting $35,000 in sports tickets, travel and lodging from Arkansas-based Tyson Foods Inc. and other companies regulated by the Agriculture Department. Smaltz's probe has led to more than $10.5 million in fines and costs against companies involved in the Espy gifts, including $6 million assessed against Tyson Foods for some $12,000 in gratuities. In addition, seven people, five corporations and one law firm have been convicted. Independent Counsel David M. Barrett's probe of allegations that Henry Cisneros, the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, lied to the FBI about payments to a former mistress cost $1.6 million during the six-month period, including FBI costs, the GAO said. Cisneros' trial is set for Nov. 4. A short-lived probe of another former Clinton White House official lasted seven months and cost $196,038, the GAO reported. Independent Counsel Curtis E. Von Kann cleared Eli J. Segal of conflict-of-interest allegations for fund raising for a private group while he headed the AmeriCorps national service program. An investigation by Independent Counsel Daniel S. Pearson of the financial dealings of former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash during a trade mission to Bosnia, had $10,372 in expenses, GAO said. An independent counsel investigation of Reagan administration-era corruption at the Department of Housing and Urban Development racked up $532,360 in expenses in the same six-month period, GAO said. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Steve in ICQ
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 12:11:24 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Everyone, just so you know I have just changed my Telephone setup so @ weekends I'll be online dirt cheap (just like my good self), so I'll be online most of Saturday night, hopefully see some of you, out there somewhere bg. Ah just thought your all about 5+ hours behind UK time, so it'll be afternoon for you, ah well whatever:-) TTFN Steve :-) Now you know, that'll be nice. There's often a dearth of posts on weekends, especially on Sunday. (Do you suppose folks have a real life or something? Nah.) It will be good to have someone to talk to on the weekends. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Cult member to plead guilty
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a deal that will save him from a potential death sentence, a member of a ``vampire cult'' agreed to plead guilty to his role in the slayings of another cult member's parents. The deal struck with prosecutors Monday ensures that Howard Scott Anderson will not follow cult leader Rod Ferrell to the electric chair for the 1996 killings. Anderson, 17, agreed to admit to being a principal in the slayings of Richard Wendorf and Naoma Queen. He was to be sentenced today to two life sentences. Ferrell, 17, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death in February. His attorneys have filed a motion to reduce his sentence. Prosecutors say Anderson watched as Ferrell pummeled the victims with a crowbar in their Eustis home, 30 miles northwest of Orlando. The teen-agers intended to rob the couple but ``Rod went crazy,'' Anderson told investigators. Ferrell was in Florida to help the victims' daughter, Heather Wendorf, run away. Lawyers for cult members Charity Lynn Keesee, 17, and Dana Cooper, 20, refused to accept a plea that would send their clients to prison for 40 years. Both are charged with being principals to murder. According to investigators, members of the cult took drugs, engaged in group sex and drank one another's blood. -- 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
LI eek! Not April Fools!
Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a real Batz Horror story from Lawrence Livermore and the DLM Lab in Alachua, FL: There is a crime ring operating in the South, with concentrations in Florida, Texas, and the New Orleans area of Louisiana. Lately there has also been activity in Las Vegas, and it is slowly expanding to other major cities. Alerts have traveled through the military also, because this is no penny-ante operation. It is well-organized and funded, and involves skilled medical personnel, most likely advanced med students and/or doctors. Here the scenario: A traveler, male or female (although men have comprised most of the victims so far, and you'll see why) goes alone into a bar or hotel lounge for a drink, where he or she is engaged in conversation by a stranger who offers to buy the victim a drink. The victim is then distracted in some way, most usually a phone page, a hotel note, or another stranger who stops by to speak to the drink buyer. The distraction passes and they have a pleasant drink together. This is the last thing the victim remembers before waking up naked in a tub full of ice. There is a note nearby which says "Do not move or leave this tub. Call 911 or you will die." A phone is within reach. EMS workers in Houston have become familiar with these calls, and instruct the caller to reach around and feel if there is a tube protruding from the lower back. As soon as the victims answers "yes", the 911 worker tells him or her to remain absolutely still, as they have already dispatched paramedics. What's happened? Both kidneys have been "harvested" from the healthy victim, whose drink was "laced" with a modern equivalent of the old-fashioned "Mickey Finn." Why? Simple--money. A healthy kidney is worth $10,000 on the "fresh organ black market." (Yes, it does exist--YIKES!) Victims in their 20s and 30s are the "best" prey---but teens and older victims have been reported as well. This really made my day---I thought sure it was an April Fool joke until our Fire Safety Officer and our "Campus Cop" assured me it most certainly was not. Don't drink and drive may have just become don't drink and travel. What a world, huh? As written to me by Barbie Batz... k Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Jones case thrown out
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Judge is throwing out the entire Paula Jones case according to CBS 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
LI Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABCNEWS.com April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Jones is suing Clinton for $700,000 in damages. She alleges that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper summon her to a hotel room, where he exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Clinton denies the allegations. The trial had been scheduled to begin on May 27. Jones' lawyers have said they plan to appeal the ruling. Legal teams for Clinton, Jones and Monica Lewinsky are also awaiting two other important rulings. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson will decide whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr must stand by a purported deal to give Lewinsky immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. Starrs office says the deal was never finalized. For the past 10 weeks, Starrs grand jury has been investigating allegations that Clinton carried on an illicit affair with the former intern and pressured her to lie about it. Lewinsky Evidence Sought Finally, Jones lawyers have filed an appeal with the 8th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to fight a January ruling by Judge Wright to bar information about Lewinsky from their sexual harassment case. In an attempt to have the decision thrown out, they insisted, the district court sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience. To alleviate concerns that allowing Lewinsky-related material into the case could interfere with Kenneth Starrs criminal investigation, Jones attorneys have offered to postpone the trial. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Linda, Bascially the ruling allows the banning of lie detector evidence in military, federal and state courts. The reason cited is because of the unreliability of lie detector test results and interpretation. You are correct in that the court will allow all jurisdictions to decide on a case by case basis whether to allow lie detector results as evidence. Most jurisdictions currently do not allow this evidence for the same reasons the Supreme Court ruling cites. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 11:23:58 -0800 "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I don't think so, correct me at will. I believe the Supreme Court left it up to separate jurisdictions to decide. What the Supremes seem to have said is that it is not an infringement of constitutional rights to bar introduction of the polygraph in instances where the right to present the best defense is not weakened, and here the defendant had opportunity to present actual facts, and was not dependent on what amounts to expert testimony (polyugraph). What think you? :) LDMF. Jackie Fellows wrote:--- 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 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 eek! Not April Fools!
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since when are kidneys removed via incisions in the back? Ron, is this something new, or just another urban legend on an appropriate day? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [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. Hi Terry How can I be wrong--Thomas wrote the decision in which the majority agreed that not introducing the polygraph did not deny Schffler of his constitutional rights because it is of such a controversial nature. The lie detector is a polygraph, it is the Keller polygraph--so why does Thomas writing polygraph instead of lie detector mean anything at all?? And just because Hill took a polygraph and passed has absolutely no bearing on this case or on Thomas writing the majority position. Seems like you are saying that because he wrote the majority opinion, it must be biased and the dissenting *minority* opinion of one is more valid. And if you consider that your dissenting judge says the courts are very selective in their willingness to use the polygraph, IMO, that means that most courts do not feel it is reliable enough to be admissible--that is what I have been saying from the beginning. If polygraphs were so all fired reliable outside the laboratory protocols that ensure validity and reliability, the majority of courts would not be so selective in their willingness to use it. They would find it a godsend as it would help clear up the current backlog of cases. And a lot more states would be using it, not just the one state you continually mention, New Mexico. As far as military courts using it, this was a military court that did not allow it and the Supreme Court sided with the military court. jackief . 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
Philosophers/Doc was: LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person?
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow, Doc Nice to hear someone has heard of "Bobby, baby." Hope in a positive way. He taught me so much. I was truly amazed at his phenomenal memory. His office was a virtual library--thousands of books, but if you asked a question, he would say--oh, and locate the book he wanted in a minute, turn to the chapter and tell me to read that. I did a number of independent studies with him and everytime I came back to my office I had six or seven more books to read. It was a standing joke on the grad floor when I came in, everyone would say "Oh, oh, jackie has been to Hollinger's office again." But I loved it jackief DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 07:05:39 EST, you write: Do you know him too?? I went to a conference with him and we went to the night session on postmodernism. The conference and the presenters will never be the same. Remind me to tell you the story sometime. Not "know him" in any personal sense, but certainly do know of him. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I use netscape and must have filled out the profile right. What a relief! jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, It probably depends on many factors, one of which is the profile a subscriber fills out when signing up. Ed clued me in about juno. If you fill out the questionnaire as if you are interested in nothing and planning to buy nothing, you get a lot fewer ads. Perhaps the spammers use the same system. I haven't got a single spam e-mail on AOL. Bill On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 06:41:07 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I don't receive spam mail on this server like I did in Fargo-Moorhead. Maybe it is the size of the town in my case--spammers would go broke in Spamtown, USA. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Ron, Are these unsolicited e-mail you're referring to? Or those stupid ads that pop up and you have to click "No Thanks" to continue the sign on process? I get those ads all the time, but no spam e-mail at all. I get a few spam e-mail on juno, but not many. Bill On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:19:12 -0800 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hopefully more states will follow this route. I tlooks like I could get rich quickly just reporting the Spam that arrives in my AOL account daily. Ron Locke signs `spam' bill; it's first such law in nation by Peter Lewis Seattle Times staff reporter Gov. Gary Locke yesterday signed into law a bill aimed at curbing unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail, popularly known as spam. As a result, Washington becomes the first state in the nation to have passed legislation that will curb, if not eliminate, what many e-mail users consider to be an annoyance or worse, according to California lawyer David Kramer. A recognized expert on Internet e-mail and legislative efforts to control it, Kramer has testified before a state House committee in favor of a tougher version of Washington's anti-spam bill. He also has collaborated on bills proposed in Congress and in four other states. The new law, which will take effect in 90 days, makes it a violation for spammers to send e-mail messages that hide their point of origin, mask the transmission path, or contain misleading information in the message's subject line. Spam, named after the often-derided Hormel meat product, usually contain such false information in their "headers," or address fields, and promote get-rich-quick schemes, miracle health cures or explicit pornographic material. The new law bans both sending e-mail with such deceptive header information from computers located in Washington, and sending such e-mail to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident. It puts the burden on the sender to find out whether the intended recipient lives in Washington. Individuals who receive such e-mail could collect up to $500 per violation; Internet service providers, the companies that provide computer users access to the Internet, could receive up to $1,000. Assistant State Attorney General Paula Selis yesterday said the state will aggressively enforce the new law, but she declined to elaborate, saying her office generally doesn't like to disclose its enforcement strategies. She called the new law "better than nothing." With the support of the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers (WAISP), Selis had drafted a more vigorous law that would have flatly banned sending spam - unless there was an existing relationship between the sender and the recipient, or the recipient had requested or consented to receive it. But powerful interests, including the Direct Marketing Association and Microsoft, testified against that v _ 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] ersion of the bill. Microsoft lobbyist Deborah Brunton said her company is "very concerned about unsolicited junk e-mail, but we also are a company that used legitimate e-mail practices to reach out to our customers." She said Microsoft was concerned that the bill's original language was ambiguous, and might have prohibited the company from developing new markets. Meanwhile, in his column posted on the Microsoft Web site yesterday, Chairman Bill Gates skewered spam, writing in part: "Wasting somebody else's time strikes me as the height of rudeness. We have only so many hours, and none to
Re: LI eek! Not April Fools!
Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No Sue.. it's NOT a joke! It happened to me.. twice! I was freezing! :-D At 01:35 PM 4/1/98 -0800, you wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: This is another "urban legend". Go to http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/mbody/htm and you can see a lot of these things that are on here. Sue Kaye.. There was a show on this 48 hours I believe ( actually can't remember which show ) and also this is the email I received concerning thisI received this in Feb This is a true, scary story!!! Read and and pass it along if you know anyone who this could affect. THIS IS NOT A JOKE: This guy went out last Saturday night to a party. He was having a good time, had a couple of beers and some girl seemed to like him and invited him to go to another party. He quickly agreed. She took him to a party in some apartment and they continued to drink, and even got involved with some other drugs (unknown which). The next thing he knew, he woke up completely naked in a bathtub filled with ice. He was still feeling the effects of the drugs, but looked around to see he was alone. He looked down at his chest, which had "CALL 911 OR YOU WILL DIE" written on it in lipstick. He saw a phone was on a stand next to the tub, so he picked it up and dialed. He explained to the EMS operator what the situation was and that he didn't know where he was, what he took, or why he was really calling. She advised him to get out of the tub. He did, and she asked him to look himself over in the mirror. He did, and appeared normal, so she told him to check his back. He did, only to find two 9 inch slits on his lower back. She told him to get back in the tub immediately, and they sent a rescue team over. Apparently, after being examined, he found out more of what had happened. His kidneys were stolen. They are worth 10,000 dollars each on the black market. (I was unaware this even existed.) Several guesses are in order: The second party was a sham, the people involved had to be at least medical students, and it was not just recreational drugs he as given. Regardless, he is currently in the hospital on life support, awaiting a spare kidney. The University of Texas in conjunction with Baylor University Medical Center is conducting tissue research to match the sophomore student with a donor. I wish to warn you about a new crime ring that is targeting business travelers. This ring is well organized, well funded, has very skilled personnel, and is currently in most major cities and recently very active in New Orleans. The crime begins when a business traveler goes to a lounge for a drink at the end of the work day. A person in the bar walks up as they sit alone and offers to buy them a drink. The last thing the traveler remembers until they wake up in a hotel room bath tub, their body submerged to their neck in ice, is sipping that drink.There is a note taped to the wall instructing them not to move and to call 911. A phone is on a small table next to the bathtub for them to call. The business traveler calls 911 who have become quite familiar with this crime. The business traveler is instructed by the 911 operator to very slowly and carefully reach behind them and feel if there is a tube protruding from their lower back. The business traveler finds the tube and answers, "Yes." The 911 operator tells them to remain still, having already sent paramedics to help. The operator knows that both of the business traveler's kidneys have been harvested. This is not a scam or out of a science fiction novel, it is real. It is documented and confirmable. If you travel or someone close to you travels, please be careful. Sadly, this is very true. My husband is a Houston Firefighter/EMT and they have received alerts regarding this crime ring. It is to be taken very seriously. The daughter of a friend of a fellow firefighter had this happen to her. skilled doctor's are performing these crimes!(which, by the way have been highly noted in the Las Vegas area). Additionally, the military has received alerts regarding this. This story blew me away. I really want as many people to see this as possible, so please bounce this to whoever you can. Michele Shafer - DML/Lab Administration Medical Manager Research Development 15151 N.W. 99th Street Alachua, Florida 32615 Tel. (904) 462-2148 Fax (904) 462-1505 Is this not one of the scariest things you have ever heard of? PLEASE forward this to everyone you know 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe
Re: LI eek! Not April Fools!
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since when are kidneys removed via incisions in the back? Ron, is this something new, or just another urban legend on an appropriate day? Doc I did not see the post to which you refer, but the urologists, if they know they do not have to explore the abdomen, will often use a flank incision and a retroperitoneal approach to the kidney. Not really in the back, but at the costovertebral angle, where the lower ribs, join the spine. Avoiding entry into the peritoneal cavity decreases the chance of peritonitis, post-op ileus, and gives a generally faster recovery. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc Susan wasn't too happy on tv just now in her appearance. I wondered though if the judge would be strong enough not to let it go forward. jackief DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 16:35:31 EST, you write: April 1 A federal judge has tossed out Paula Jones sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., has decided in favor of President Clinton's motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Paula Jones' ;lawyers have been told by the court that the entirety of their case has been thrown out. Once in a while, someone does get it right! But what a lot of money has been wasted. Doc 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
LI Re: Thomas was polygraph
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a perjuror. I am really curious?? jackief -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether this is the correct decision or not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions list.Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
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
Re: Philosophers/Doc was: LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person?
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 18:07:12 EST, you write: Nice to hear someone has heard of "Bobby, baby." Hope in a positive way. He taught me so much. I was truly amazed at his phenomenal memory. His office was a virtual library--thousands of books, but if you asked a question, he would say--oh, and locate the book he wanted in a minute, turn to the chapter and tell me to read that. I did a number of independent studies with him and everytime I came back to my office I had six or seven more books to read. It was a standing joke on the grad floor when I came in, everyone would say "Oh, oh, jackie has been to Hollinger's office again." But I loved it Yes, highly positive. Don't you love teachers like that? They make all the rest of the grad school nonsense worthwhile. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI eek! Not April Fools!
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 18:54:12 EST, you write: I did not see the post to which you refer, but the urologists, if they know they do not have to explore the abdomen, will often use a flank incision and a retroperitoneal approach to the kidney. Not really in the back, but at the costovertebral angle, where the lower ribs, join the spine. Avoiding entry into the peritoneal cavity decreases the chance of peritonitis, post-op ileus, and gives a generally faster recovery. Ron Thanks, but I don't think a flank entry fits with the scenario. This guy was told to examine his back for two small slits -- weird!Do they do kidney removals through keyhole incisions now? My daughter had one removed years ago -- a large incision on the left side of her abdomen. Un-nice. You missed a fun post, though. Someone, please send it to him -- I don't save mail. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Anti-Spam Law Passed by Washington State
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 17:10:08 EST, you write: I want your email account, Bill! I get several dozen a day -- everything from porn to the inevitable MLM blurbs. Doc LOL...now I feel left out. Bill Send me your aol account name and I'll happily forward you whatever you want. Or would you rather have it on the Juno account? We aim to please., Doc 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
LI Important Notice
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To: All Internet Users From: Kim Dereksen Interconnected Network Maintenance staff Main branch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Subject: Internet Cleaning PLEASE PASS THIS NOTICE TO OTHER USERS WHO MAY NOT SEE IT! As many of you know, each year the Internet must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The cleaning process, which eliminates dead e-mail and inactive ftp, www and gopher sites, allows for a better-working and faster Internet. This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01 a.m. GMT on April 1 until 12:01 a.m. GMT on April 2. During that 24-hour period, five very powerful Japanese built multi-lingual Internet-crawling robots (Toshiba ML-2274) situated around the world will search the Internet and delete any data that they find. In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do the following: 1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their Internet connections. 2. Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the Internet. 3. Disconnect all disks and hard drives from any connections to the Internet. 4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way. 5. Avoid placing operating microwave ovens or toaster/toaster ovens near your computer modem. 6. Avoid wearing nylon (or other dielectric fiber) undergarments because of the possibility of electrical discharge. We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any inconvenience will be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the Internet, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam. We thank you for your cooperation. Kim Dereksen Interconnected Network Maintenance staff Main branch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sysops and others: Since the last Internet cleaning, the number of Internet users has grown dramatically. Please assist us in alerting the public of the upcoming Internet cleaning by posting this message where your users will be able to read it. Please pass this message on to other sysops and Internet users as well. Thank you. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI eek! Not April Fools!
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-01 21:02:31 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have seen that the urologists can remove a kidney laparoscopically ( they actually wrap it in a little bag after cutting the blood supply and ureter, then insert a thing that blenderizes the kidney), so yes you can remove a kidney, obviously not fit for transplantation, through a very small incision. Ron Will wonders never cease? But as you say, that would put a crimp in the transplant potential. Thanks. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I doubt I'll be the first to bring this to your attention, but the Federal Judge was appointed by Bush. Len At 04:33 PM 4/1/1998 -0800, you wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether this is the correct decision or not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions list.Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Police Reopen Infant's Death Case
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This reminds me of a true crime book I read. It was one of the few true crime books I almost didn't finish due to the actions of the mother. The only reason I did finish it was due to the fact I was at a management training course and that was the only reading material I had brought with me. The women had the same thing 6 of her kids died from SIDS, supposedly, on the sixth one the police finally decided to do a in-depth investigation, it was discovered she murdered each child, except for the first one, that was was actually a real accident, and that child's death was the only one she really became emotional about, the police theory was that death triggered her killing the other children. Her first child that was a accident had fallen off the back step and suffered a fatal head injury, of course there was a lot of out pouring from the community and such, after that each baby she had died by the time it was six weeks old of SIDS, when they went back and checked the bodies again it was discovered she had actually smothered her other children. She was a classic case of Munchausen by proxy. She liked the attention she got when she had a baby and couldn't handle the attention disappearing after the newness wore off, so she would smother the babies, and get the attention back. Oh another one of the tip offs that started people talking is one of the children was adopted that died. This case sounds just like it, except it seems they had as a motive insurance money. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Police Reopen Infant's Death Case PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- One family. Ten babies. Not one lived past 15 months. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Police Reopen Infant's Death Case
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: I think that there was a tv movie about the book that you are talking about. In fact when I first read this I thought it was the same story. Sue This reminds me of a true crime book I read. It was one of the few true crime books I almost didn't finish due to the actions of the mother. The only reason I did finish it was due to the fact I was at a management training course and that was the only reading material I had brought with me. The women had the same thing 6 of her kids died from SIDS, supposedly, on the sixth one the police finally decided to do a in-depth investigation, it was discovered she murdered each child, except for the first one, that was was actually a real accident, and that child's death was the only one she really became emotional about, the police theory was that death triggered her killing the other children. Her first child that was a accident had fallen off the back step and suffered a fatal head injury, of course there was a lot of out pouring from the community and such, after that each baby she had died by the time it was six weeks old of SIDS, when they went back and checked the bodies again it was discovered she had actually smothered her other children. She was a classic case of Munchausen by proxy. She liked the attention she got when she had a baby and couldn't handle the attention disappearing after the newness wore off, so she would smother the babies, and get the attention back. Oh another one of the tip offs that started people talking is one of the children was adopted that died. This case sounds just like it, except it seems they had as a motive insurance money. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jones Case Dismissed
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Susan has been on the LA channels all evening, and she is not a happy camper to say the least. She says she is getting together with Paula's attorneys and they are going to appeal. The media is camped out in front of Paula's condo (she is home) waiting for her to come out and make a comment, but so far she hasn't. Sue Hi Sue, ROTFI bet a lot of people think this is an April Fool's joke. You watch those right wingers drop ol' Paula Jones like a hot potato now. The Rutherford Institute wasted a lot of money on this one. I guess Bennett was right all along. I'd like to have seen Susan Carpenter McMillan's face when she got the news. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Police Reopen Infant's Death Case
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm that would be interesting that they made a movie out of it. Yet the book I found sickening, but I've always had a problem with people who kill kids. It's not something I can stomach. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: I think that there was a tv movie about the book that you are talking about. In fact when I first read this I thought it was the same story. Sue -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Police Reopen Infant's Death Case
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: I know what you mean. :( It really wasn't that good a movie either. Sue Hmm that would be interesting that they made a movie out of it. Yet the book I found sickening, but I've always had a problem with people who kill kids. It's not something I can stomach. -- 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
LI Jones' Case Judge All Business
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jones' Case Judge All Business LITTLE ROCK (AP) -- The judge who dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit Wednesday against President Clinton once took a law school class under his tutelage and then campaigned against him in his first political race. It goes to show that when dealing with law and politics, Susan Webber Wright is all business, say her friends and legal associates. ``She's very businesslike. She follows the rules. She follows the law,'' said U.S. Attorney Paula Casey, a Clinton appointee who has known Wright for nearly 20 years and once taught with her at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Wright said in a 39-page ruling Wednesday that ``there are no genuine issues'' under the law to justify Paula Jones' civil lawsuit against Clinton -- and so canceled a trial set for May 27. The ruling was done in characteristic Wright fashion, said a former colleague. ``She's careful and methodical,'' said professor John DiPippa, whose office abutted Wright's at the Arkansas' law school. ``I call her a conventional legal thinker. She looks at facts and then she looks at the law and she decides whether they are sufficient under the law.'' DiPippa said he also had come to the conclusion that Mrs. Jones' case lacked merit. Wright's ruling surprised at least one attorney familiar with her, Bobby McDaniel, who had argued unsuccessfully before Wright against citing the Clinton's one-time business partner, Susan McDougal, with contempt for not testifying before the Whitewater grand jury. ``It's pure speculation on my part, but I am sure that there is probably a measure of satisfaction that Judge Wright is feeling tonight for all of those who called her a Republican hack when she was ruling against Susan McDougal,'' McDaniel said. Wright, appointed to the bench in 1990 by President Bush, headed a local organization of lawyers supporting Bush's 1988 presidential campaign. Her judicial appointment was sponsored by Republican Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt, whom she campaigned for in 1974 in his race against an upstart politician, Bill Clinton. Hammerschmidt won. The campaign came shortly after Wright completed a course in admiralty law taught by Clinton at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Clinton lost some of the final exams, including Wright's, and she reportedly argued to take the test again. She got an ``A.'' Later as a law professor herself, Wright taught property law, agency and partnership law, and other traditional law courses. She served for a while as an associate dean, after rising through the ranks from her beginning in a closet-sized office. ``Her office was neat as a pin,'' said DiPippa, who talked with Wright daily. ``You would describe her as serious most of the time. She wasn't the backslapping type of person, but certainly appreciated a joke when one was told, probably not telling them herself.'' Wright's husband, Robert R. Wright, also is a professor at the university. He drew attention earlier this year when he said he has made suggestions, but not helped, his wife make decisions in Mrs. Jones' case. As Mrs. Jones' was attracting greater and greater media attention. Wright at one point requested an armed escort to her car in the evenings and barred reporters from congregating outside her office on the third floor of the federal courthouse. ``She wants to be friendly with lawyers and litigants. She wants to be perceived as someone who's not dictatorial,'' said McDaniel, who currently has a medical malpractice case pending before Wright. ``But when it comes time to make a decision, she may wrestle with it until she reaches it, but then it's there.'' Banker Herby Branscum Jr., whose Whitewater-related trial before Wright ended in a mix of acquittals and non-verdicts, remembered Wright most for the way she moved the proceedings along. ``It stayed on schedule, and I thought she tried to handle it rather businesslike,'' Branscum said. ``She was determined to do what she thought was right.'' -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything
LI Paula Jones 'Shocked' By Ruling
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paula Jones 'Shocked' By Ruling LONG BEACH, Calif. (AP) -- Paula Corbin Jones dared to take the president to court -- a decision that made her a household name across America. On Wednesday, she was described as disappointed that her case had been thrown out of court but respectful of the judge who did it. ``The one that paid dearly for this is a great heroic woman -- Paula Corbin Jones -- who, for four years, has endured the filth and the slime and attacks of the White House,'' said her spokeswoman, Susan Carpenter McMillan. Following Wednesday's ruling that threw out her lawsuit, Mrs. Jones remained in the gated apartment she has occupied for the past three years with her husband, Stephen Jones, and their children. ``Paula was shocked,'' said Carpenter McMillan. ``She's disappointed. We have a lot of respect for Judge Wright. We just strongly disagree.'' One of Mrs. Jones' lawyers, John Whitehead, said she ``has not indicated that she regrets anything except not getting her day in court.'' Mrs. Jones shocked the nation in February of 1994 when she announced at a press conference in Washington that Clinton had made sexual advances to her in a hotel room on May 8, 1991, when he was Arkansas governor. A few months later, the former state worker filed her civil suit in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, seeking $700,000 in damages for ``willful, outrageous and malicious conduct.'' Mrs. Jones was born on Sept. 17, 1966, in Lonoke, Ark., the third daughter of an evangelical minister and his wife. Since word of her allegations surfaced, Mrs. Jones' case distracted a nation with a lawsuit that opened the door for further questioning of women in Clinton's past. But Mrs. Jones also paid a price for being in the public spotlight. She was ridiculed by the media. She was called a puppet of right-wingers, and she became the butt of jokes during late-night talk shows. The president's attorneys poked through every crevice of her life, calling her story ``tabloid trash.'' Topless pictures of her, taken by an ex-boyfriend, were printed with a Penthouse magazine article that accused her of being promiscuous before getting married. The trial had been scheduled to begin May 27 until U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the case, saying Mrs. Jones' evidence fell ``far short'' of proving sexual harassment. At an impromptu news conference in front of Mrs. Jones' Long Beach harbor apartment complex, Carpenter McMillan told reporters that she would consult with Mrs. Jones' attorneys to determine whether any part of the judge's decision could be appealed. ``We had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to make sure we got it tried,'' Carpenter McMillan said. ``We'll more than likely be back before the Supreme Court again.'' -- 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
