Re: LI Another Woman-Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Someone on one of those Sunday News shows said that the WH and everyone on the "hill" keep right up on those polls that are published. I'm sure that they are all aware of the publics feelings about Clinton. I honestly don't think it will get to the point where it gets before Congress, and if it does, I don't think these people are going to risk their "jobs" getting rid of a President who has the approval rating Clinton does. I realize that most of the people do not approve of him, but they do like the job that he is doing. As long as their lives are comfortable they have jobs, the economy is up, and everything else is going good, they are going to overlook any thing that he does other than his job. I also don't think that this trip to Africa is doing him any harm either. That's just the way I see it. :) Sue Hi Sue I just can't help but wonder if Congress stays in tune with the public at all sometimes. Now they have allocated more money for this mess. I just shake my head. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Polygraph Testing/Jackie, Sue
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: It is mostly mumbo jumbo. Nothing anyone could understand much less use against someone. Sue Hi Dr. L Sue would know more than me about sodium penothol. I only know from experience the effects of the stuff. Yep, Sue, some people do say some weird things. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI I'm bewildered! I'm Shocked! In reality I'm fed up with the BS
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Sounds good to me. But we definately need to go after the big bucks, because Ed is going to want a big percentage of this thing, that is for sure. BEG Hi Sue LOL How about a percentage of what I get?? jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I think that you are right about that one. Even during his first campaign he was running with the Hollywood celebs, and was sort of a part of them. Even went on the Arsenio Hall show and played his horn. People do tend to forgive celebs anything. Even if they go to jail. Hillary standing by him certainly didn't hurt at all. Another thing that has been brought up is the fact that people are uneasy about getting into his private sexual life. I think that might have a lot to do with it too. I have thought about the fact that if they can get into his, what is stopping them from getting into any one of ours. Although mine would certainly be boring. BEG Sue Hi Sue I think the commentators have point out an important reason why. Clinton has been put in the same category as a celebrity and we don't expect as much in morality from celebrities, they suggested. The other thing they mentioned that Hillary has helped him tremendously by staunching defending him. They felt that many then felt if she could forgive him, why not the rest of us if he had done those things. Something to think about I would think. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Vampire Killing was Re: LI Question
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Do you think it is possible that the antisocial behavior could be due to the fact that there is so many different ways now to relate to people without face to face confrontation. Such as email. :) People don't have to get involved personally with anyone anymore in order to survive in the world. And if they want company all they have to do is turn on the puter, television, etc and they have company. They don't have to interact if they don't want to, and if they disagree with something said they can either turn it off, or come back with whatever they want without fear of reprisal. A person can live perfect fine without ever leaving the house now. There are jobs that can be done at home, order in food or whatever you need, and communicate via phone and puter. You don't even have to go to the bank you can do that via puter. With less and less interacting with society, there is little need to be social. You can carry on a relationship with people without ever even knowing anything about them. Only what they chose to tell you, which may or may not be true. Heck you can even have sex. LOL Sue Hi Sue and Steve Just skimmed the article Sue. Am playing catchup again. We have not been able to get into the server--stupid thing. We are discussing genes in developmental this week. Real controversery about nature vrs nurture as you know. But of course I fall on the side of nurture more so than nature. Do know that there is some interesting research in that area in regard to personality traits. The students handed in articles, so as I read them will fill you in on the latest research if you like. One pretty good article points out the difference between a person's genotype and phenotype. And it appears that your phenotype is considerably influenced by the environment, so even if you are born with personality traits you may not express them. Not unless the environment is conducive to the expression of those traits. I think it is the same as the old diasthesis-stress approach to personality. The predisposition may be there, but the person has to be exposed to the right stressors or stimuli before the predispostion "kicks" in. They were using that idea in the 80s as a possible explanation for alcoholism, etc. Can't remember if I kept my old abnormal or psychology books, but it is book request time again (Christmas in April and May for me--G). One thing that is often forgotten is that if there is a genetic basis for a personality trait does not mean the person necessarily demonstrates the trait negatively. Many successful politican, surgeons, and policemen would be classified as having antisocial personality characteristics. In fact there is some speculation that the culture of American has resulted in a majority of the population being antisocials to some degree. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Study Confirms Deficit in the Brainstem of SIDS Victims
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Bobby keeps telling me just to play around with it. That is the only way to learn. But every time I do something like that it takes him about 4 or more hours to figure out how to clean up the mess I make. Seems that I never remember what it was I did to create the problem in the first place. Kathy has pulled me out of more messes than I care to remember, or she wants to remember too, I'm sure. :) Can't you go on to the Mayo site. Most of these big places have indebth sites where you can pretty much find anything you want. In fact Harvard and Cornell even put some of their professors' lessons right on their sites. There are a lot of "papers" that are put on there too. Sue Hi Sue Thanks for the site. I talked to our new librarian today and he told me who to call at Mayo to try and get permission to be a patron and get lots of their information. Hope it works. Will call next week--figure this is a busy week for everyone including Mayo. I am simply going to have to bug poor Kathy and learn how to make links. After all, she has nothing better to do than instruct us computer geniuses, right : ) (Like heck, I can hear Kathy muttering in the background--G) Isn't that the story all the time--I promise this won't hurt you as it is only a little bit of spray. I like technology too, but I wish we wouldn't jump quite so quickly to use it all the time. Thanks again for sending the book--as soon as I get through this week, I can read it--hooray. I caught Ed giving it the ole' hawkeye look so will have to watch over the book or he will begin reading it. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Sounds like good old political talking to me. LOL Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about it. Sue OK, Sue, seriously. When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on. When the elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have to show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity. It won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people. 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 Serial Killers/Definition
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy, Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I said before I am by far not a expert on SK's I do know a bit about them though... Only a fool would question that. :-} The extra Chromosome as you are discussing below may be a key into the cause of SK's, it's just not known yet. It would be nice if we could find out what causes it, and hopefully they can pin down some definite medical reasons. Understand the extra chromosome is still quite controversial and evidence is mixed. In the particular case of Shawcross it seemed even less implicated than the other apparent genetic defect which seemed to be ignored except in one dark corner. I know of no evidence that all serial killers share any particular genetic or environmental defect though many things are quite common. Shawcross varied from the profile of most serial killers in numerous ways. This monster was really odd. Examples: His first killings were those of a pedophile. He would not have been expected to transfer his killings to adult women. He was capable of taking responsibility for his actions rather than blaming the victim Concerning Hoffman I agree he is not a SK, more of a exterminator out for revenge is what it looks like to me... Ummm - I looked up serial killer in a dictionary without success. a SK has a very specific profile, Aren't you turning things upside down, Kathy? If we take the profile of all serial killers we will no doubt get common characteristics of many. But that does not define serial killers. in that it's rare they will know their victims, and they get sexual gratification from the torture of their victims. Is Ted Kaczynski then not a serial killer? Sexual gratification is a nebulous concept itself. It is arguable whether serial killers are simply looking for sex or the sex is a means of gratifying an even more powerful lust, e.g. that for power. I am sure some will argue Ted Kaczynski got a sexual thrill from his bombings. Revenge at a victim is not something in the psych of a SK, now sometimes there is someone who the victims will represent, mother or grandmother, and that is how they will pick their victims. Seems to me revenge is an even more obvious motive of serial killing than sexual thrills. And Wayne Williams' murky motivation seems furthest removed from all others I know of. I have never heard anyone deny Wayne Williams was a serial killer if you assume his guilt (as I do). The fiber evidence is quite convincing IMO. Understanding a phenomenon requires that one look at the edges and find dividing lines as well as looking for commonality. 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 Any ideas or help would be appreciated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. HI Sue, Ooops, instead of helping I think I see an argument that would go against you here. It seems to me that 43.1 covers situations where something occurs during a pregnancy that affects the child who is "subsequently born". This would enable legal action, for example, against a person who caused the injury or damage. An example of this would be a car accident where a drunk driver injured a pregnant woman and her child is born with serious defects caused by the accident. Or someone who assaulted a pregnant woman and caused defects in the child that was subsequently born. Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT "subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue that the fetus had no rights at the time of its death. That, in order to have any rights with respect to the assault, the fetus would have had to survived long enough to be "subsequently born." But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't let me rain on your parade here. :) Bill _ 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 Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:27:11 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: Sounds like good old political talking to me. LOL Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about it. Sue OK, Sue, seriously. When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on. When the elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have to show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity. It won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people. Best, Terry Hi Terry, Fortunately in our judicial system it is never required of anyone to prove that they are innocent. It's up to the state or the feds to prove that they are guilty. So far I don't think Hillary has even been indicted. Bill _ 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 Any ideas or help would be appreciated
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. HI Sue, Ooops, instead of helping I think I see an argument that would go against you here. It seems to me that 43.1 covers situations where something occurs during a pregnancy that affects the child who is "subsequently born". This would enable legal action, for example, against a person who caused the injury or damage. An example of this would be a car accident where a drunk driver injured a pregnant woman and her child is born with serious defects caused by the accident. Or someone who assaulted a pregnant woman and caused defects in the child that was subsequently born. Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT "subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue that the fetus had no rights at the time of its death. That, in order to have any rights with respect to the assault, the fetus would have had to survived long enough to be "subsequently born." But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't let me rain on your parade here. :) Bill Hi Bill: LOL You aren't raining on our parade here. In fact you came up with exactly what we came up with..."It seems to me that 43.1 covers situations where something occurs during a pregnancy that affects the child who is "subsequently born". This would enable legal action, for example, against a person who caused the injury or damage."... 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
Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to admit I know next to nothing about what happened with Whitewater. What I do know is; Susan McDougal and her husband either owned or ran a bank and they agreed to give loans that were not legal. There was some land that someone owned and the investors were somehow swindled. I don't even know who owned the land or who did the swindling. Hillary had a small amount of money and managed to parlay that money into a big amount. There were some papers that disappeared and suddenly were found on a table in the white house by a maid or someone. (That is amazing to me BG) And no one seems to know how they got there. That is my extent of knowledge of Whitewater. Was Hillary acting as the attorney for these people. I know she belonged to a group of lawyers. What I was saying basically is that if a person says that they were not privy to information, and have not discussed this information with anyone then how can it be proven that they knew anything. One can "know" that they do, but to prove it seems impossible, to me anyway. Like Reagan, everyone knew that the Iran/Contra thing was something that he had to have known about. If he didn't then he should have been kicked out for stupidity. But no one would say he knew, and he wouldn't admit to knowing, so how do you prove it. Am I making sense? Sue OK, Sue, seriously. When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on. When the elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have to show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity. It won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people. Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill - agreed, in the civil case the fetus would simply have prospective standing, it seems: future access to relief, once being born But the criminal code wouldn't even give *that* much. Based on argments from "majority" supportin personhood, and that being calculated from first breath of life (and ona case we would like yet to read), the crim case gives it seems no prospective or future 'standing' to the "child" as an agrieved, if its self's system is insulted. So contrasted with civil code where high up in the hierarchy of codes, and mirroring the US constitution, the fetus basically has life, liberty, and property interest albeit subject to birth.. the crim law falls short of this (entitlement?). Now here's a stinger: on the surface, the crim law is interested in harm to the mother; the civil code is broad but also includes the fetus in the range of persons which the law accepts as possibly harmed, and with a cause of action at law. But how can one argue the 'civil code' applies to the 'crim case'? First, if clearly the Civil is superordinate (umbrella language) ranging over citizens, should it not do so in a crim context? Or, should the crim context take that away? Secondly, it the mother (or father!) in a crim context is assaulted by the other parent, does this not colorably apply to insult to the fetus? If so, the subject of the harm is not only the hramed parent but the dependent child. Next we have a procedural question: didn't the lawyers bring this up? Does the court have an obligation to raise questions like this or introduce references? There are a lot of technical and basically humanistic questions here, and all posts will help... glad you chose to post, and please feel free to correct or amend the above. :) Best, LDMF. William J. Foristal wrote: 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. HI Sue, Ooops, instead of helping I think I see an argument that would go against you here. It seems to me that 43.1 covers situations where something occurs during a pregnancy that affects the child who is "subsequently born". This would enable legal action, for example, against a person who caused the injury or damage. An example of this would be a car accident where a drunk driver injured a pregnant woman and her child is born with serious defects caused by the accident. Or someone who assaulted a pregnant woman and caused defects in the child that was subsequently born. Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT "subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue that the fetus had no rights at the time of its death. That, in order to have any rights with respect to the assault, the fetus would have had to survived long enough to be "subsequently born." But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't let me rain on your parade here. :) Bill _ 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Serial Killers
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I was wondering if serial killers vary there methods of killing or finding a victim to avoid detection or do they follow predictable patterns, Jack the Ripper was a serial killer was he not and although he was never caught his attacks were always targeted against prostitutes and he killed in the same manner. I was also wondering if serial killers actually think what they do is wrong, or do they see there victims as objects to enable them to commit the most vile acts with no conscience or feeling towards the victim? Is it true that SK's are on average more intelligent than an average person? Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? + Liquid air for premamture births
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are a lot of technical and basically humanistic questions here, and all posts will help... glad you chose to post, and please feel free to correct or amend the above. :) Best, LDMF. As far as the law goes over here a fetus is not a baby or a child until it is to, advanced to legally allow a abortion, this includes using a fetus for genetic and Pharmaceutical research. I think that is a good place to begin with although there are minor pressure groups trying to get the legal limit reduced. The question of when does a baby become a person is one for which I cannot find a comfortable time for, and I think the research that I have seen on Discovery and other programs about when a baby becomes self aware all leave me feeling uneasy. Another thing we discussed (at college today) was the use of oxygenated liquid to help premature babies with undeveloped lungs survive, its an offshoot from deep sea diving technology (as in the film Abyss, your government was actually quite aggrieved that it was used in the film). As our ability to keep premature babies alive improves I feel it will make the above question more and more difficult. When the technology comes along to enable a baby to grow without its mother then some serious sociological questions have to be answered. Its bad enough with that but when we can successfully clone ourselves to use as spare parts then Frankenstein will be alive and well for sure. Medical technology is reaching a point were all the unacceptable things that we depicted in comic books, are now becoming closer to reality. Steve Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Linda, It seems to be a type of Catch 22 situation. I have heard of cases (wish I could remember the reference names) where the state has waited until the birth of a baby to determine if damage had been done to the fetus when the mother was assaulted. The case I'm thinking of was a rape and assault. The objective was to charge the perp with some form of assault and battery against the fetus that resulted in harm. But I'm not sure how that turned out. It seems clear that the law doesn't really consider a person's rights or legal standing until after birth. But that in some cases it may be possible to assign a criminal liability to an action done against the mother while carrying the fetus that results in damage to the fetus that is subsequently born. But if the fetus dies then there does not seem to be any legal standing for criminal or civil charges. Bill On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:15:07 -0800 "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill - agreed, in the civil case the fetus would simply have prospective standing, it seems: future access to relief, once being born But the criminal code wouldn't even give *that* much. Based on argments from "majority" supportin personhood, and that being calculated from first breath of life (and ona case we would like yet to read), the crim case gives it seems no prospective or future 'standing' to the "child" as an agrieved, if its self's system is insulted. So contrasted with civil code where high up in the hierarchy of codes, and mirroring the US constitution, the fetus basically has life, liberty, and property interest albeit subject to birth.. the crim law falls short of this (entitlement?). Now here's a stinger: on the surface, the crim law is interested in harm to the mother; the civil code is broad but also includes the fetus in the range of persons which the law accepts as possibly harmed, and with a cause of action at law. But how can one argue the 'civil code' applies to the 'crim case'? First, if clearly the Civil is superordinate (umbrella language) ranging over citizens, should it not do so in a crim context? Or, should the crim context take that away? Secondly, it the mother (or father!) in a crim context is assaulted by the other parent, does this not colorably apply to insult to the fetus? If so, the subject of the harm is not only the hramed parent but the dependent child. Next we have a procedural question: didn't the lawyers bring this up? Does the court have an obligation to raise questions like this or introduce references? There are a lot of technical and basically humanistic questions here, and all posts will help... glad you chose to post, and please feel free to correct or amend the above. :) Best, LDMF. William J. Foristal wrote: 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. HI Sue, Ooops, instead of helping I think I see an argument that would go against you here. It seems to me that 43.1 covers situations where something occurs during a pregnancy that affects the child who is "subsequently born". This would enable legal action, for example, against a person who caused the injury or damage. An example of this would be a car accident where a drunk driver injured a pregnant woman and her child is born with serious defects caused by the accident. Or someone who assaulted a pregnant woman and caused defects in the child that w _ 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] as subsequently born. Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT "subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue that the fetus had no rights at the time of its death. That, in order to have any rights with respect to the assault, the fetus would have had to survived long enough to be "subsequently born." But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't let me rain on your parade here. :) Bill _ 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
Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, One correction here. The Clintons lost money on their Whitewater investments. Bill On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:55:47 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I have to admit I know next to nothing about what happened with Whitewater. What I do know is; Susan McDougal and her husband either owned or ran a bank and they agreed to give loans that were not legal. There was some land that someone owned and the investors were somehow swindled. I don't even know who owned the land or who did the swindling. Hillary had a small amount of money and managed to parlay that money into a big amount. There were some papers that disappeared and suddenly were found on a table in the white house by a maid or someone. (That is amazing to me BG) And no one seems to know how they got there. That is my extent of knowledge of Whitewater. Was Hillary acting as the attorney for these people. I know she belonged to a group of lawyers. What I was saying basically is that if a person says that they were not privy to information, and have not discussed this information with anyone then how can it be proven that they knew anything. One can "know" that they do, but to prove it seems impossible, to me anyway. Like Reagan, everyone knew that the Iran/Contra thing was something that he had to have known about. If he didn't then he should have been kicked out for stupidity. But no one would say he knew, and he wouldn't admit to knowing, so how do you prove it. Am I making sense? Sue OK, Sue, seriously. When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on. When the elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have to show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity. It won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people. Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ 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: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting that an unborn offspring is a child and thus a person, with life and liberty rights. The crim case, though, goes to the mothers rights. Do you think if the civil statute were to govern in the criminal context, the child would have a large interest in the mother'sa interests (in being protected)? That could IMO be a bridge between the two, and perhaps the legslative intent of both sets of laws comingle here. Sue? Terry? Streve? Others?:) LDMF. --- Code: --- CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 43-53 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
RE: LI MJ12 Documents best wishes from spooky
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would like to apologize to you all for the large file size, I thought that no matter what way I post them there going to take the same amount of time to download. Hope you find them interesting. Best Spooky::-) === As big bird spreads the word, anybody with a heart votes love. - Fluke. === PERSONAL EMAIL TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? + Liquid air for premamture births
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-27 14:44:21 EST, you write: Hi Steve - you have added a new time of accrual of 'personhood'! Offline we had discussed the standards that date 'personhood' from conception (the East), from the first independent breath (one and only one of the American Views), but viability in terms of danger in abortion is a third; and that can be a difficult call, can't it? Turning to both you and Sue here for your knowledge, and *yoohoo Doc Jackie and group*. :) LDMF. "When is a person?" is the real question, and no one can answer it. There are a plethora of opinions, but opinions are not answers. There's conception, implantation (shortly after conception but separable from it), brain development, heartbeat, "quickening" or movement, and viability outside the womb (a stage which changes as technology advances). I've probably omitted a few, but that's the general idea. No one knows. IMO no one will never know. We don't even agree on a good definition of "person" -- I'm a bit of a Kantian so I tend to go with his idea that a person can form a resolution re right and wrong that he/she would agree should govern every person. That not only eliminates fetuses, it does a number of kids as well. In the Kantian school, BTW, an unborn is either a "future person" or a "potential person" -- the first gets born, the second doesn't, and you don't know until one or the other happens. There are also categories called "person-like" which encompasses those mentally unable to reach the plateau of forming the imperative, but who in all other attributes are similar to persons, "former person" which would include the alzheimer's patient and/or one in a persistent vegetative state (except that we've seen a few of the latter recover, so...) The reason it's important is that we (Kantian ethicists) assign rights based on personhood. E.g., a person has a robust (you can't infringe on it) right not to be killed for sport. Non-persons do not have that right, although there may be other very valid reasons for not doing that to them -- society's interest, parental valuation of the not-yet-person, things like that. In Kantian terms, those rights are not "robust" but are called rights-sub-two whereas robust rights are rights-sub-one. Now, aren't you sorry you asked? All this, and masses more, is from the course in Philosophical Roots of Bioethics taught by Tris Englehardt for the Kennedy Institute at Georgetown. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? + Liquid air for premamture births
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Steve: On the abortion issue, I think that Terry brought up something that to me makes sense. That issue relates to the rights of the woman. In this case the woman's rights were violated because she had no choice as to whether her baby was or wasn't harmed. That is the way I see it anyway. :) Sue As far as the law goes over here a fetus is not a baby or a child until it is to, advanced to legally allow a abortion, this includes using a fetus for genetic and Pharmaceutical research. I think that is a good place to begin with although there are minor pressure groups trying to get the legal limit reduced. The question of when does a baby become a person is one for which I cannot find a comfortable time for, and I think the research that I have seen on Discovery and other programs about when a baby becomes self aware all leave me feeling uneasy. Another thing we discussed (at college today) was the use of oxygenated liquid to help premature babies with undeveloped lungs survive, its an offshoot from deep sea diving technology (as in the film Abyss, your government was actually quite aggrieved that it was used in the film). As our ability to keep premature babies alive improves I feel it will make the above question more and more difficult. When the technology comes along to enable a baby to grow without its mother then some serious sociological questions have to be answered. Its bad enough with that but when we can successfully clone ourselves to use as spare parts then Frankenstein will be alive and well for sure. Medical technology is reaching a point were all the unacceptable things that we depicted in comic books, are now becoming closer to reality. Steve -- 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: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems rather clear to me, Linda. The most extreme case is when a fetus is killed which is not covered by 43.1. That has been found to be murder when it is done without the mother's consent. But if a fetus is to be "deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth" the child's interests are certainly harmed by an attack on the mother. The interests of the mother and fetus are nearly identical in this case. "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting that an unborn offspring is a child and thus a person, with life and liberty rights. The crim case, though, goes to the mothers rights. Do you think if the civil statute were to govern in the criminal context, the child would have a large interest in the mother'sa interests (in being protected)? That could IMO be a bridge between the two, and perhaps the legslative intent of both sets of laws comingle here. Sue? Terry? Streve? Others?:) LDMF. --- Code: --- CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 43-53 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. 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: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: You have it exactly the way that I see it. And the thing I can't understand is how can they say in the civil law that the fetus is a child, and then the Supreme Court say it isn't. Can't have it both ways, IMO. Either it is, or it isn't. Sue Seems rather clear to me, Linda. The most extreme case is when a fetus is killed which is not covered by 43.1. That has been found to be murder when it is done without the mother's consent. But if a fetus is to be "deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth" the child's interests are certainly harmed by an attack on the mother. The interests of the mother and fetus are nearly identical in this case. -- 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 COTD: Pennsylvania Unsolved murders
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc :) One never knows, usually the only reason the crime spree stops is the assaulter has gone to prison, died or left the area. At least that is what has always happened in the past. For them to stop on their own is unheard of at least to my knowledge. Yet your rapist in reality does not fit the others MO since he's letting his victims live. Usually they escalate to killing the victims but don't go in reverse to not killing them. DocCec wrote: The "longhaired" caught my eye. We have a trio of unsolved rapes in the area, and the only victim who can describe the assailant describes a white male with long fair hair worn in a pony tail. We are not that far from the PA scene Doc -- 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 Jones: Perry Mason aka as Summary March 26
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first note for anyone who decides they are smarter than the DA, You are NOT smarter than the DA it is NOT advisable to attempt to prove you are, it will do nothing but end up showing a side of you that you do NOT want the jury to see. Second note if your guilty and your going to lie about what you did, keep your story straight! Third if you decide to take notes up to the stand to keep your story straight, do NOT have your lawyer type them up, it makes it look like it's his story not yours. And lastly do NOT EVER go to the stand get caught lying then try to claim the 5th, it just don't look good hahaha. Now on the the fun summary of the day :) A combative, unremorseful Reco Jones took the stand today and tried to place the blame for the murders of Yolanda Bellamy and four children squarely on one of his ex-girlfriends, Maliaka Martin. But when confronted by prosecutor Kevin Simowski during cross-examination, Jones admitted that he was following a "script" during his prior testimony and undermined his story about Martin. Jurors heard an entirely different version of the slayings from Jones. He testified that he had visited Martin in the middle of the night (4:30) and had fallen asleep at her house. According to Jones, he and Martin were together for a brief time the previous night, and they had argued about Jones's having female friends and continuing to talk to Bellamy. Jones said that he visited Martin to settle the argument with her and claimed that he also had CDs belonging to Bellamy that he wanted to return. Jones then decided to drive to Bellamy's house to return her belongings, and Martin accompanied him, how many people are going to be up that early? And why go over that early to get CD's? According to the witness, he also wanted to settle the hard feelings between Bellamy and Martin over the love rivalry they had involving him. He is such a Romeo! (VBG) Jones told the jury that when he and Martin arrived at Bellamy's house, Martin attacked Bellamy. He said that he tried to break up the fight between them, but Bellamy had already been stabbed. "What did you do that for?," Jones claimed he asked Martin. (Jones also claimed that his arm was cut accidentally by the murder knife while he tried to separate the two women.) Martin, Jones claimed, went on to kill the four children, but he never explained why he never stopped her. Poor Jones just stood by in total shock and watched this massacre happen, what he didn't realize his story did even if true, which I doubted, is he had just made himself an accessory to the crime. He also said he never washed his hands at the house, but his blood was found at the sink. The defendant then claimed that he and Martin returned to her home, both showered to wash the blood off their bodies, and then ultimately returned to the murder scene to help cover up the crime. Jones acknowledged that he went to his friend Tamika Terrell's house and that she helped them burn some of his bloody clothes. He denied telling Tamika that he "cut the fuck out of Yolanda". Jones's direct examination was labored and difficult for his own attorney, John McWilliams. Both on and off the stand, Jones argued with McWilliams over his answers to the questions and wanted to give detailed answers when McWilliams tried to persuade him to follow his instructions. Judge Kym Worthy had to excuse the jury multiple times to remind Jones that he must only answer the questions asked by his attorney and that McWilliams was trying to help him. (I was LOL a couple of times, I felt sorry for his attorney though, but there was no way this man was going to play by the rules on the stand. He was his own worse enemy.) The defendant denied confessing to the murders when interrogated by police and said that he jumped out of the window at police headquarters because he was scared and knew Martin and the police were trying to pin the murders on him. However, prosecutor Kevin Simowski took an immediate, aggressive approach during his cross-examination of Jones, saying, "You like to tell stories and lie, don't you, Mr. Jones?" To that, Jones incredibly replied, "Yes." (I was floored when he said that!) Simowski continuously accused Jones of lying, saying that he was really the one that killed Bellamy and the children. Jones replied that he was following his "script," when he told the story about Maliaka Martin and the murders. He said openly in court in front of the jurors that he was following his script. (This implied that his prior testimony was a story Jones's attorneys had made up for him. His attorneys later said on record that they did not encourage him to make up a story. They only made up notes so that they could verify the facts of the case with Jones.) I can just imagine what the jurors were thinking! This cross was wonderful! I was glued to the TV watching it. The prosecutor asked Jones to confess, tell the court the truth about his role in the
Re: LI Re: Update Ruthann Aron trial
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The cross was unbelievable! I was constantly going from open mouthed shock to LOL, I have NEVER seen a cross like this! It was a work of wonder! LOL I just emailed the summary to the list :) I expect a quick conviction, as soon as he tried to claim the 5th that told everyone the truth of the matter. DocCec wrote: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-26 19:21:28 EST, you write: Highly entertaining end of the trial today! I will elaborate more in the summary :) Now that's tantalizing! Tell! Tell! The Aron jury left for the evening without a decision. The judge is apparently trying to cajole them into trying rather than coming in hung. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI COTD: Pennsylvania Unsolved murders
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-27 17:55:37 EST, you write: Yet your rapist in reality does not fit the others MO since he's letting his victims live. Usually they escalate to killing the victims but don't go in reverse to not killing them. I don't know that he's letting them live deliberately. One he beat very badly, the other he started to beat and she ran away, and the third one got him in the face with pepper spray so he never got to first base. These all took place within a few blocks of one another, so that neighborhood (College Park area) is pretty tense right now. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI 40-50 people murdered?
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A respiratory therapist at Glendale Community Hospital, has just admitted to killing between 40-50 patients over the past few years. He says he did this for humanitarian purposes. The news is just breaking in LA. Sue 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
Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh I see Bill, I can buy that, you're quite clear. It's like in the Civil Code the rights vest at conception but they don't accrue til birth (is that a valid extrapolation of your position? Hope you'll comment). Something like that, you might sharpen my words. But I see what you mean and it certainly seems sound. Now perhaps we can still contrast the Ward criminal case that says nothing vests at conception (or before) or after. Maybe the rights vest and accrue and the same time !?! at birth. On the practical level, there still seems a big gap between the civil and criminal, and the civil would hold sway because it describes basic rights that are vested and accrue long before the criminal act in focus? It still seems possible to resolve them by first not denying the individuality of the existent fetus as a 'future person' (see Doc's post) with primal dependicies on the mother. Second, one can posit that the fetus has built-in desire or endowed right not to be harmed, following from the mother's interest in not being harmed and the child's dependence on her being protected. I think worked out logically or mathematically this could be 'feature inheritance' or something close. But that's a bit dry, here in context. :) LDMF. --William J. Foristal wrote:- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Linda, I still think that the way the statute reads the fetus must be "subsequently born" before he/she can have legal standing with respect to any rights. Yes, the large interest in the mother's protection and survival is paramount with respect to the fetus. But the rights are not conveyed until after the fetus is born. At least that's the way the statute seems to read to me. And the cases where it would make the most difference is when the mother survives but the fetus dies. Instead of murder the perp would be charged with a lesser crime. Bill On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:09:49 -0800 "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting that an unborn offspring is a child and thus a person, with life and liberty rights. The crim case, though, goes to the mothers rights. Do you think if the civil statute were to govern in the criminal context, the child would have a large interest in the mother'sa interests (in being protected)? That could IMO be a bridge between the two, and perhaps the legslative intent of both sets of laws comingle here. Sue? Terry? Streve? Others?:) LDMF. --- Code: --- CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 43-53 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of the child's subsequent birth. 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Terry - yes. Yes. In attenuated fashion I just posted related
thoughts to Bill; I hope you get a chance to see it, it should arrive
just a minute before this post. But I think you have said *more*, and
this would be quite important, have you here posited a way the Civil
Code can hold sway, and the criminal case (Ward) could have been so
reasoned? Stellar. :) LDMF.
PS: from what is derived your first sentences on murder? Particular
law, or are you drawing that from the conditional in the statute ("in
the event of the child's subsequent birth")?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems rather clear to me, Linda. The most extreme case is when a fetus is
killed which is not covered by 43.1. That has been found to be murder
when it is done without the mother's consent. But if a fetus is to be
"deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in
the event of the child's subsequent birth" the child's interests are
certainly harmed by an attack on the mother. The interests of the mother
and fetus are nearly identical in this case.
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil
statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting
that an unborn offspring is a child and thus a person, with life and
liberty rights. The crim case, though, goes to the mothers rights. Do
you think if the civil statute were to govern in the criminal context,
the child would have a large interest in the mother'sa interests (in
being protected)? That could IMO be a bridge between the two, and
perhaps the legslative intent of both sets of laws comingle here. Sue?
Terry? Streve? Others?:)
LDMF.
--- Code:
---
CALIFORNIA CODES
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 43-53
43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from
injury to his personal relations.
43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing
person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of
the child's subsequent birth.
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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /Bill [was LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated]
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Linda :) From looking at this, in reality the child is not considered a person unless it's born. I would assume alive. Thus if it's injured during a beating of the mother and born DOA I would think there is nothing they could do about it, unless they can show the child took one breath on it's own. Then they could go after the person who beat the mother and caused the death of the baby. I know they tried this in a DWI case in San Diego, a young lady was killed by a man who was DWI she was 5 1/2 mos pregnant, the DA wanted to charge the man with the death or her and her child, but they weren't able to. The mother died instantly they tried to save the baby, but they couldn't, the baby never breathed on his own. So they could only charge him with the death of the mother. Section 43.1 seems to be the major thing, the child has to be born alive in order for any charges to be brought. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. wrote: "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting -- 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
