[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Yeah, that was an ironic bit of timing, wasn't it? And I guess we
shouldn't minimize the fact that she and her husband DID commit crimes
and stole money from others. But I wouldn't have a problem with crediting
her for timed served on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Kathy,
That's right! I remember this case. Thanks for the recap on it. I
remember thinking at the time how unfair it was that this woman had to
sit in jail simply for protecting her daughter. I never realized that
her case precipitated the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
That's the problem with the independent prosecutor's office. Not to pick
on Starr all the time. It's really the law that set up the office itself
that is the problem. It invites abuse of the worst kind, IMO.
Bill
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
Bailey didn't have Starr after his butt either. :)
Isn't there a statute of limitations on cases like this. That
Whitewater thing happened 25 or so years ago.
Sue
HI Sue,
Yeah, that was an ironic bit of timing, wasn't it? And I guess
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
Seriously?? I didn't think that anyone was that far above the law. Sue
HI Sue,
I don't think Starr is affected by ANY statutes. :)
Bill
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe,
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill and Sue :)
Just a slight correction here in case your not aware of it, there was
another lady that spent 18mos in jail for contempt charges it was due to
her that the law now limits the time of being held to 18mos for
contempt.
I can't remember her
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 11:40:33 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
On the Sunday morning news shows, there was a lot of talk about the
Republican party saying enough is enough, and for
