Re: L&I Question
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc No, you're sure not the only one tired of all the talk about the BS going down in Washington. I'm not familiar with the Aron case but it sounds like another manufactured defense. They are becoming very popular. The only case I've been keeping my eyes open for news about is the Lisa Lambert appeals up in Penna. Sue and me seem to be the only ones keeping up with that. I don't get court TV and have been kinda busy lately. It's diffcult to wade thru all the posts when most seem to be about the BS in DC. Len At 08:45 PM 3/22/1998 EST, you wrote: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Is anyone at all interested in the Ruthann Aron case that goes to the jury >this week? She is the MD legislator who (allegedly) hired a hit man to kill >her husband and an attorney. In fact, the defense isn't questioning whether >or not she did that, so I guess the allegedly isn't necessary. They are >claiming brain damage and mental illness -- "borderline personality" is their >specific claim. The pros is saying she faked her tests to make herself look >mentally ill. I don't know where the brain damage bit came from -- no one >seems to have any evidence about that. > >Surely there's something to talk about besides the so-called Crisis in >Washington? If not Aron, then some other case. Am I the only one getting >bored by all this Jones-Lewinsky-Willey stuff? > >Doc > >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: L&I "Black Widow" Executed
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: At 12:12 PM 3/30/1998 -0500, you 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. > Good question. And I don't disagree at all. They both got what they deserved. Len Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I 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: L&I Jones Case Dismissed
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill Too bad the Judge can't make Paula pay all Clintons legal bills. What are the right wing wacko gonna try next? Len At 04:58 PM 4/1/1998 EST, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > >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 > > >On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:23 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: >>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 >> > >_ >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: L&I Joe Six-Pack
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Come on Ron. Your not insulted. You'll just use any excuse you can to knock Clinton. You should know by now you're not fooling anyone around here. Len At 07:46 AM 4/6/1998 -0700, you wrote: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >President Clinton says that if he were an average citizen, "Joe Six-Pack", >he might regret not getting his day in court against Paula Jones. I don't >know about the rest of you, but this a pretty demeaning comment about the >people that elected him, and I for one am insulted. Ron > >Jury - Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer. >[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: L&I Most say Starr should close probe: poll
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bill, Sue, et al Now that Paula Jones has been removed as the right wing wacko's political puppet, Monica is the perfect replacement. Starr and the rest of them will get all the mileage they can outa her. Len At 12:13 PM 4/6/1998 EDT, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > >Hi Sue, > >Clearly Starr has no case against Lewinsky unless he can get >corroborating evidence to show that she DID have sex with Clinton and >that Clinton told her to lie about it. Her affadavit given under oath >states that she did not have sex with Clinton. All she has to testify in >defense of any indictment is that her statements to Tripp amounted to an >immature woman's bragging to a person who loved gossip and made a great >audience by reacting with wide eyes and open mouth. There is no crime in >bragging to someone an lying when not under oath. So to indict her would >be more ridiculous than what Starr has done already. > >IMO, based on what the public has been told, no indictments will be >forthcoming and Starr will send his report to Congress and that will be >the end of it. The lawyers get rich and the taxpayers get a bit poorer. > >Bill > >On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:39:30 -0700 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: >>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>Hi Bill: >> >>I have been listening to the news shows, and MSNBC all morning, and >>they >>pretty much say the same thing that you do. Even the republican >>senators that have been on the shows. They want Starr to come out and >>say that he plans to end this thing within the next couple of months, >>and either indict someone or send it to congress. All of them seem to >>think however that if Starr were to indict Monica the public would >>really get upset. Most want it sent to congress and be over with. >> >>Sue >>> HI Sue, >>> >>> The thing that will finally end Starr's witch hunt is the thing that >>> started it all, with respect to Starr being appointed. That is the >>> political machinations of the right wing conspiracy group. These >>are the >>> same people that jumped all over Starr when he dared to try to >>resign and >>> go to Pepperdine. And the same people who directed him to jump on >>the >>> Lewinsky case when that occurred. >>> >>> Now that the Jones case is dismissed and even Newt Gingrich is >>praising >>> Clinton for his courage, I think we'll see a quick wrap up and a >>report >>> going to Congress where the committee will conclude that no further >>> action is required. For political reasons they may offer a >>meaningless >>> censure of the president. >>> >>> And after all of this dims in the memory of people historians will >>mark >>> Clinton down as one of the finest presidents in the 20th century and >>the >>> man who led the economy out of the Reagan/Bush dark ages and into >>the >>> sunlight of a Dow Jones index that breaks the 10,000 mark. >>> >>> 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 >> > >_ >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: L&I Wife wins $45 Million
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lets hear it for the Judge. It's about time they came to their senses and do the right thing for the wives. Len At 10:42 AM 4/27/1998 -0400, you wrote: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >A homemaker has won an equitable distribution award of $45 million, an >amount that is believed to be the largest ever in New York State. > >In making the award, Justice Walter B. Tolub wrote that, through 33 >years of marriage, the homemaker and her husband's "fortunes were >inseparable." > > The decision will be published tomorrow. > >Justice Tolub concluded in Goldman v. Goldman, No. 313111/96, that the >homemaker, Vira H. Goldman, was entitled to half the couple's assets, >which total approximately $90 million. Ms. Goldman's husband, Robert I. >Goldman is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Congress >Finanical Corporation, a lending institution. > >Mr. Goldman's lawyer, Lawrence Pollack, of Midgal, Pollack, Rosenkrantz >& Sherman, said an appeal is likely. > >According to Norman S. Sheresky, who represented Ms. Goldman, it is >common for courts to give a spouse a 50-percent share of a couple's >assets when the value of their property is in the $10 million range. But >there has been uncertainty in the matrimonial bar as to whether courts >would award a 50-percent share for a large estate when that figure >would generate far more income than necessary to maintain a homemaker's >lifestyle, said Mr. Sheresky, of Sheresky Aronson & Mayefesky. > >In Ms. Goldman's case, a 50-percent share would yield about $2.25 >million in after-tax income, an amount far larger than she needed to >live on, Mr. Sheresky said. Justice Tolub recognized that fact as well >in ruling that an award of maintenance was unnecessary in light of "the >sizeable equitable distribution award and its liquidity." > >Justice Tolub cited Ms. Goldman's substantial contributions as a >homemaker to the marriage. She raised their child, who is now grown, >without help, entertained without a full-time maid until 1986, and gave >Mr. Goldman haircuts until they separated in 1996, he noted. > >Ms. Goldman also oversaw, in the manner of a general contractor, the >renovation of the couple's Sutton Place townhouse as well as several >investment properties on the East End of Long Island and in the >Catskills. In sum, Justice Tolub wrote, "Ms. Goldman was involved with >every phase of Mr. Goldman's existence." > >The major portion of the couple's assets was in stock that Mr. Goldman >holds in Congress Financial Corporation, which has an after-tax value of >$63.5 million, Justice Tolub said. The couple's other significant assets >included the Sutton Square townhouse, with $3.1 million in equity; >furniture and furnishings valued at $2.9 million; and bank accounts, >stocks and other similar investments valued at $7.8 million. > >Justice Tolub also rejected Mr. Goldman's argument that the appreciation >on about 25 percent of his stock holdings in Congress Financial should >not be considered marital property because it was acquired prior to the >couple's marriage. That argument, Justice Tolub, wrote "denigrates the >true genius that is Robert Goldman." > >Corestates Bank which acquired a majority interest in Congress Financial >in 1968 relied heavily on Mr. Goldman's expertise and went to >substantial lengths to fashion a financial package to keep him with the >company, Justice Tolub explained. > >Alan Mayefsky, of Sheresky Aronson, also represented Ms. Goldman. >-- >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
Re: Rodney King (was L&I Back Home)
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Joan There was no evidence that Rodney King "attacked" the officers or, even for that matter, physically resisted arrest after the car stopped. What is it that makes you think he did those things? Len At 01:57 PM 4/26/1998 -0400, you wrote: >"Joan Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hello Kathy, > >I recall your post about LAPD training. Hopefully it has improved with >time and with the exposure that police force has received. I believe when >it is necessary to subdue a prisoner attempting to avoid capture or to >escape or to prevent that individual from harming someone, then force must >be used. I believe King needed to be subdued as he did not succumb to >capture willingly. The line appears to be at what point King was under >control and how much physical force was still used when it was unnecessary. > I believe there was abuse and that was wrong. On the other hand, I do not >excuse King for the part he played. Had he not behaved as he did, a high >speed chase would have been avoided and had he not resisted arrest and >attacked the officers, no force would have been necessary. However, I >certainly distinguish between necessary force and abuse. Abuse is not >acceptable on the part of the criminal or the police. I understand your >point. :) > > Joan > > >-- >> From: Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: L&I Back Home >> Date: Sunday, April 26, 1998 1:16 PM >> >> Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> Hi Joan :) >> >> I disagree with you :) If you remember a couple of years ago I stated >> that the problem was in the training of the LAPD according to their >> training they were following the procedures used at the time. OTOH that >> does not lift the responsibility off of the officers and what they did, >> nor does it lift the responsibility off of RK and what he did. >> >> Joan Moyer wrote: >> > >> > "Joan Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > Hello Vi, >> > >> > Glad the surgery was successful. I had a house on the market once for >a >> > year and it was a real worry since I had bought another. Glad to read >your >> > posts. We are probably the only 2 who believe King had to be subdued >and >> > the officers were not totally at fault. >> > >> > Joan >> > >> -- >> 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 > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I All members please read
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy Thanks for bringing us in on this. It seems like pretty short notice to me. If you're going to bail out for a while, why did you pose this in private to only a couple of people. What did you propose that you met with strong objection to. What will the monthly cost be to keep the list going after November. What is involved and how much time per day or week is required to keep the list going. I'm willing to volunteer some time if someone else will also. Len At 04:02 AM 4/29/1998 -0400, you wrote: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi all :) > >I have been considering something lately and I have made my decision, I >really enjoy this list and what we have become :) Sure there are >differences of opinions and sometimes some pretty heavy debating but >through it all a common respect for each other has prevailed, that is >appreciated :) > >One thing has been laying heavy on my mind though. I posed this in >private to a couple of people and I was met with strong objections and >some even threatened to leave if I do this, well I hope they don't carry >out on their threats but I have to do what is best for me, and right now >is not a good time for me to be the list owner of this list. I have >several ongoing projects right now and it is not giving me the time to >do what I need to as the LO of this list, that isn't fair to you the >members. Plus I also want a break if not permanent at least temporary >UFN. > >I suggest if you are interested in running this list you contact me in >private, if so desired there can be a vote on the new LO of the Law >list, and I will offer them complete support in the admin of the list >and how to do the different files and configurations, I will also have >Esosoft turn the list over to their name and have mine removed. As of >right now I have the list payed up until November 1998. > >I will be stepping down effective May 4, I think that is more than >enough time for you all to decide who you want as the new LO. In case >anyone is wondering no I'm not leaving the list I'm just stepping down >as the LO and I'll still post the COTD's and summaries of trials I watch >and so on :) > >Thanks for your time :) >-- >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
Re: L&I Microsoft hearings
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hello Dr. L.D. I've been following this for a while and find it very interesting. Hope they can finally cut Gates down to size on a couple of things. This Internet explorer he's trying to jam down everyone's throat is a peice of crap. Maybe he'll wake up soon. Len At 05:30 PM 3/3/1998 -0800, you wrote: >"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Dear News.Com Dispatch Reader: > >The tech world doesn't get more dramatic than this. Today on Capitol >Hill, >Sen. Orrin Hatch grilled Bill Gates over whether Microsoft is a monopoly >subject to antitrust laws. > >As industry rivals Scott McNealy and Jim Barksdale looked on, Gates >fought >back against the charges that have dogged his company since the start of >the Justice Department's investigation. > >NEWS.COM's special coverage from Washington brings you the full story, >including comments by McNealy and Barksdale, as well as live feeds from >CNET Radio. > > http://www.news.com/SpecialFeatures/0%2C5%2C19637%2C00.html?nd > > >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: L&I Microsoft hearings
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy What really bothers me is Microsoft's arrogance. I recently had to download a couple of files for someone on their computer. They had IE 4 and it wasn't too bad. I may try it on a spare hard drive so mine doesn't get screwed up. Anyway I need to learn how to use it. Doubt that I'll ever switch though. Len At 10:32 PM 3/12/1998 -0500, you wrote: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >I am glad to see I'm not the only that things I.E. is a piece of crap. I >don't see why anyone uses it. I have tried it in all of it's various >stages and keep finding myself going back to Communicator, at least with >them I can control where my files go and I don't have a lot of useless >crud taking up space on my hard drive. > >Leonard Booth wrote: >> Hello Dr. L.D. >> >> I've been following this for a while and find it very interesting. Hope >> they can finally cut Gates down to size on a couple of things. This >> Internet explorer he's trying to jam down everyone's throat is a peice of >> crap. Maybe he'll wake up soon. >-- >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
Re: L&I Windows 98 the rundown.
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joan You'd be a consumer version. Len At 05:03 PM 3/14/1998 -0500, you wrote: >"Joan Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hello Steve, > >If Win 98 will be the last version, would it be better to wait for one of >the coming flavors of >WinNT: Consumer, Workstation, Server? I know nothing about any of the >three. > > Joan > >-- >> From: Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Law Issues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: L&I Windows 98 the rundown. >> Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 8:48 AM >> >> Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> Windows 98 is basically a slightly rewritten version of Win95(b), with >IE4 >> and active desktop fitted as standard. >> It includes updated dial up networking. >> Converter from fat16 to fat32 for hard drives. >> Improved defrag utility which puts an applications files in a strip to >> improve loading times. >> Improved memory management for machines with over 64mb ram (95a dies not >> allocate memory properly after 32mb) this is why Microsoft stay is the >> optimum amount of memory for a 95 machine. >> Faster shutting down. >> Common driver model which will enable a device to use the same driver for >> Win98 it uses for Nt5. >> >> The jump from Win95 to Win98 is not as significant as that from 3.11 to >95, >> it is an evolutionary update to the O.S >> >> Win98 is however the last version there will be, after this there will be >> three flavors of WinNT, Consumer, Workstation, Server. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Please test my connectivity
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Here it is At 09:00 PM 3/14/1998 -, you wrote: >Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >I would be grateful if you would send this message back to me. >My average email is about 60-100per day so I need to tell my ISP how much >they have lost. > >Cheers Steve > > > > >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: L&I Nanny trial revisited ?
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dr.LDMF The lesser included charge in the nanny case came about cause the Judge threw out the jury's verdict. I think the attorney's for the nanny simply expected the jurors to think and act like lawyers. It's possible the attorneys were thinking far enough ahead and felt the judge would not allow a 2nd degree murder conviction stand if their thinking about the jury was wrong. We'll never know what was really going on in their minds. Len At 01:26 AM 3/15/1998 -0800, you wrote: >"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Sue and group - there certainly does seem to be in common the issue >whether a defendant is entitled to a jury charge on lesser-included >charges.This way the sentence would have to be less. > >As I recall - check me out - the defense in the Nanny trial did not want >this because they wanted absolute innocence or absolute guilt, using the >strategy that absolute guilt woudln't happen. But if this is right, as >I say, check me out -- then how did the lesser-included count come about >in the Nanny trial; my memory is not recent on this, appreciate if you >or group could post on this; > >do you think there's any generalization possible on these things, and >can the absolute black/white defense ever work, or should attorneys >argue the gray? C U soon, :) LDMF. >Sue Hartigan wrote:--- >> >> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> No 96-1693 >> >> Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit >> >> At issue in this death-penalty case is whether a person convicted of >> felony murder had a due process right to have jury instructions on >> lesser-included charges (second-degree murder or manslaughter) when, >> under >> Nebraska law, no lesser-included offenses for felony murder exist. >> >> On March 29, 1980 Randolph Reeves raped and stabbed two women to death >> in >> a Quaker meetinghouse in Lincoln, NE. A jury found him guilty of felony >> murder and a three judge panel sentenced him to death. The jury was >> told >> that the penalty for felony murder could be life imprisonmente or death. >> The court below held that under Beck v. Alabama (447 US 625 (1980)), the >> jury had to be instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence >> could warrant a conviction for those offenses. The State maintains that >> felony murder has never included lesser offenses in NE and since the >> three >> judge panel had discretion in sentencing, the Beck rule doesn't apply. >> >> 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 > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: (Kathy) L&I List limits
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy Sorry for that. I usually do send the large ones via private email. Musta gone to sleep on that one to Dr. L.D. Promise I'll be more careful in the future. Len At 08:52 PM 3/16/1998 -0500, you wrote: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi All :) > >Just FYI if your sending a file to the list watch how large the file is, >if it's longer than 27k it will not go to the list, it will bounce to my >email, because the file is to large for the list. I suggest if you are >only sending that for one person you send it in private email instead. >If a group of people would like it you'll have to send it in parts to >the list. > >I will usually repost the bounced messages but the last couple I >received had all been transferred into numeric numbers so it made it >impossible for me to split up the file and post it for the person >forwarding it. >-- >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
Re: L&I Ron's Opinion
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hey Mac Don't do anything rash like leaving this list. Ron's opinion is worth Zero to me and others so stick around. I, for one enjoy your input and rational thinking. Len At 12:13 AM 5/5/1998 -0400, you wrote: >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Evenin', > Ron thinks my recent absence from the list was welcomed by all. I would hate to think >that was true. But since Ron has elevated himself to be your spokesperson ( ie Susan >Carpenter McMillian) it must be true. ;) So, I'll take my smart ass elsewhere where >discussion can be free from censorship from a member who is a hypocrite and has a very >misguided view of the world around him. I will miss the friendships I have formed here >and am truely saddened by the recent turn of events. Anyone who finds themselves looking >for a vacation spot feel free to come to the Cape and pull up a beach chair >and join me in my precious little piece of heaven. Hell, I'll even toss a lobsta' in da >pot >for ya! The next sound you here will be the door hitting me on the ass as I head off into >the good night. >...Mac >" Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where > were rich with food and wine in abundance, an obsequious attendance, but > sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable > board. The hospitality was as cold as the ices." > ...Henry David >Thoreau > > >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: L&I Fw: Hatch deflates Microsoft event
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Steve I think Hatch is hitting the nail on the head. With all that Gates and company have pulled so far, there's no doubt that he'd resort to some big time arm twisting over this. Len At 09:06 PM 5/5/1998 +0100, you wrote: >Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> >>Just hours before Bill Gates and executives from a number of Microsoft >partners were to stage a rally promoting the high level of competition they >say exists in the software industry, conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) >made a preemptive strike against the event. >> >> On the Senate floor this morning, Hatch questioned whether the >executives--who are expected to urge antitrust regulators not to file suit >against the software giant--were appearing by choice. >> >> Among the executives joining Gates today are Eckhard Pfeiffer, president >and CEO of Compaq Computer; Jim Halpin, president and CEO of CompUSA; Bill >Krause, president and CEO of Storm Technologies; and Ted Johnson, executive >vice president and chief technology officer of Visio. Representatives from a >number of groups that advocate for people with disabilites also will attend. >> >> "It strikes me as curious that it was only after calls from Microsoft >that many of these individuals saw fit to sign letters and make public >appearances," Hatch was quoted as saying in a floor statement. "Indeed, I >have been told that some executives in fact hope to see the Justice >Department pursue further its case against Microsoft, but have chosen to >join Mr. Gates on that stage today because they feel they have little choice >but do so in order not to jeopardize their relationship with the industry's >most powerful and important player." >> >> Microsoft representatives were not immediately available for comment. >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: Vince Foster murdered? A cruel hoax.
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill Interesting how the facts get all twisted around, isn't it? It was really the bullet that they never found and they (RWW's), tried to make something out of. Talk about grasping for straws. Len At 11:24 AM 5/7/98 EDT, William J. Foristal wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > > >On Wed, 6 May 1998 14:16:11 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: >>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>in spite of >>the results of four separate investigations concluding he committed >>suicide. >>Bill >> >>How do you shoot yourself and nobody ever finds the gun near the body, >>Bill >>? > >HI Ron, > >Obviously you are not familiar with the real facts in this case. You >need to read the conclusions of the four investigating groups that all >determined he committed suicide. There is so much propaganda spewed >forth by the American Spectator and other right wing fanatics that the >facts have been distoted beyond recognition. > >The gun WAS found near the body, in a spot that corresponded with what >one would expect considering the recoil and the physical reaction of the >person shooting himself. > >BTW, guess who one of the investigators was whose group concluded that >Foster's death was a suicide? Yep.your very own Kenneth Starr. :) > >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
Re: L&I help on modem
Leonard Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bob The new standard, V.90, has been agreed to by all concerned. It's final approval is thought to be just a formality now. Several months ago, I bought a USR Sportster 56K X2 for someone else. It consistently connected with AOL X2 line at 50.6k. USRobotics (now 3COM) just released a new sportster model with v.90 and is own X2. I will me buying one of these this weekend for a friend and will do some informal testing on both x2 and 56K flex (V.90) mode. I'll let you know as soon I have some good info. USRobotics has consistently been rated tops by all the reliable sources that I'm aware of. TTYL Len At 09:17 AM 3/20/1998 -0800, you wrote: >Robert Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >good morning all >i'm thinking of upgrading my modem,but not sure which way to go.i now >have a 28,800 >bob,wa > >-- >I don't suffer from stress.I'M a carrier.. >[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
