Re: LI A Very Cruel Hoax, Not.
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, Doc - a simplistic question, hope you don't mind replying: how are healthy blood flow channels preserved, that is there seems to be a special targeting. Do you know how this is achieved with these drugs? Thanks :) LDMF. Ronald Helm wrote:--- "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about the problem of mets, Ron? Will they have to discover and isolate every metastatic tumor? Or will this really only be good for a primary or in situ that hasn't metastasized yet? Doc Metastases usually do not exhibit the angioneogenesis that the primary tumor does, therefore I would guess that this process would only really be beneficial in shutting down the blood supply to the primary tumor. Many tumors do not metastasize, and spread by local invasion, or local spread...a good example being the most common of ovarian cancers which implants on peritoneal surfaces. Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 8:54 AM Subject: Re: LI A Very Cruel Hoax DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-05-05 11:45:14 EDT, you write: Actually it has been known for years that angioneogenesis ( the proliferation of blood vessels ) is characteristic of solid tumors. Many have been working on this idea, but this has apparently been the first successful inhibition of the process, at least in mice. Apparently these investigators have isolated a factor that stimulates the process and have successfully inhibited this factor in mouse tumors. 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: LI A Very Cruel Hoax, Not.
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ron - Thanks for the response; makes sense to me (about the inhibitory effect, possibly, on new formations) and is more detailed than anything I've been hearing. Sure is nice to have on the list both a medical person and one who can communicate (oh, and is willing to share). :-) LDMF. Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron, Doc - a simplistic question, hope you don't mind replying: how are healthy blood flow channels preserved, that is there seems to be a special targeting. Do you know how this is achieved with these drugs? Thanks :) LDMF. I wish I could answer that question. These angiogenesis inhibitors, must only prevent new vessel formation, and that is why they could not be used in pregnant women where a fetus is developing its circulatory system. Also adults develop collateral circulation, for example after coronary occlusion or bypass, new vessels develop to supply the myocardium. I suspect that this process would be inhibited by these medicines. Ron 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Flight Attendant Tale Lands With a Thud
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue -- sniff sniff sniff go the legal begals: is this a new twist on libel defenses? You never know who will bring suit, but forget publish and retract, now its publish and crow? I dunno, seems very odd... but then again a 40 minute fondling, that seems odd too, but then I missed the show. Was she complaining, bragging, or none of the above? wink LDMF. -Sue Hartigan wrote:--- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tabloid Show Touts Story, Then Shoots It Down By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 5, 1998; Page C01 (etc.) Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Viagra hits the legal scene/divorce
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Folks - Psychologist tells me there is this new thing, a side-effect (humor) of Viagra, called "Viagra Divorce" (not funny). Subject finds himself able to sustain erections, begins to feel his oats, wants to go out on the range. I discussed with my friend that this camn be said of anti-depressants or other psychopharmaceuticals. Without blinking, psychologist friend began to expound upon" prosac-divorce". So there you go! :) Best wishes, LDMF. -Sue Hartigan wrote:--- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron: Now Viagra *could be* the cruelist hoax of all. :) Sue For example, we are discussing Viagra under the "Cruel Hoax" thread. Go figure. Ron -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Whitewater grand jury dismissed/Bill
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill - possibility of leak? Oh yes, that is, if there is something to leak! This one seemed to end with somewhat of a thud in contrast to predicted outcomes - do you think? Or is T. S. Eliot on the mark: this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper. :) LDMF. (Hollow Men or Prufrock or Wasteland or other?) William J. Foristal wrote:--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, The Grand Jury members have to be careful that they are not caught leaking information about what went on in the proceedings. It is against the law and a person could go to jail for leaking things. Of course, an anonymous source could make some good pocket change if he/she wanted to take a chance. Bill On Tue, 05 May 1998 13:58:13 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I bet they have a news conference on Dateline or Nightline, one of those shows. :) How much money did this thing cost us and what did we get out of it, is what I would like to know. Are we going to be told all that, I wonder. Sue Sue Hi Sue, How long do you think it will be before we read leaks coming from anonymous former Grand Jury members? G 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: LI Misleading Headlines for Entertainment Purposes Only
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greetings all: I read a headline today about a suspect being indicted for eating the evidence (mary jane). On analysis, it seems he swallowed it. You just can't trust headlines. :) LDMF. ---William J. Foristal wrote:-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 5 May 1998 14:19:55 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyone can apply their own definitions. I explained my objections to the press reports as best I was able. Can we say some people didn't get past my headline? Best, Terry You got that right for sure. I often put a tricky little hot button item in the Subject line just to catch people's attention. I wish others would pay a little attention to changing the subject line to the subject being discussed. For example, we are discussing Viagra under the "Cruel Hoax" thread. Go figure. Ron Hi Ron, Isn't that a big criticism of the "hype" of the media. Sensationalized headlines that have no bearing on what is in the body of the article. (I changed the subject of this for you) G 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: LI Flight Attendant Tale Lands With a Thud
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue - do you happen tho know time and channel? I guess we are a few hours different but I can probably figure it out. Thanks, LDMF. :) ---Sue Hartigan wrote:- Hi Dr. L. Actually I thought the whole thing was funny. But then I do tend to have a weird sense of humor. BG They didn't show the part where they confront her with the results. That is suppose to be on today. If you have nothing else to do and want to get some laughs, take a look. Sue Hi Sue -- sniff sniff sniff go the legal begals: is this a new twist on libel defenses? You never know who will bring suit, but forget publish and retract, now its publish and crow? I dunno, seems very odd... but then again a 40 minute fondling, that seems odd too, but then I missed the show. Was she complaining, bragging, or none of the above? wink LDMF. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI :-)- Thanks Kathy; Kaye too :-)
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Folks, I have become in awe of all it takes (from the posts) to host and keep up a list. You both have done so much for us, remember the ol CT list days? Your generosity of time and spirit is really appreciated. Just wanted, along with the others in the group, to let you know. Best wishes, LDMF. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI NO MAIL
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Got it here in NewYawkState too Bob! :) LDMF. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bob: I got it. Sue Hi All would someone let me know if this gets through.im not getting any mail from the group. bob,wa -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Sue, Group, would victory for Ellerth be very helpful to Paula Jones Appeal, where even if an Appeals court found the 'act' outrageous, there would still be for Jones the problem of showing detriment to her (damages)? Sue Hartigan wrote:- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth No. 97-569 Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit At issue in this Title VII sexual harassment case is whether a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment can be asserted against an employer when the victim neither submitted to the sexual advances of the perpetrator nor suffered tangible adverse effects in terms or conditions of employment by refusing to submit to the harassment. Kimberly Ellerth was hired by Burlington in 1993. During the next year, her male supervisor made repeated sexual advances to her. She rebuffed his advances, yet was not tangibly hurt in her employment. She was even promoted on one occasion. She resigned from Burlington in 1994 and filed suit in federal district court after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. The court below held that employers may be held strictly liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment even if the harassed employee neither submitted to the supervisor's sexual advances nor suffered adverse employment consequences. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greetings - it does indeed look from here that showing detriment is Paula's big problem; wonder in the Now people are as interested in that as they are in the outrageous 'act'. Perhaps. Dr. Ron - didn't you post regarding feminist amicus curiae briefs? ---Sue Hartigan wrote:- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dr. L.: I heard some people talking about this case the other night, and from what I gathered this case would have a very big impact on the Paula Jones case. It will also have a big impact on all sexual harassment cases in the future. Sue So Sue, Group, would victory for Ellerth be very helpful to Paula Jones Appeal, where even if an Appeals court found the 'act' outrageous, there would still be for Jones the problem of showing detriment to her (damages)? -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI DP for 11 year olds
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Life without parole is about as far as I can see when trying to view this. The idea of holding a child on death row until a certain age seems medieval; isn't this cruel and unusual per se? LDMF. --Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sooz: To be honest I think that if they started holding parents responsible for their childrens actions at a younger age it would not get to this point. I can't see putting an 11 year old on death row, at the same time I think something has to be done to stop what is going on now. The one thing that this man said that I totally agree with is the fact that kids are not like they were when we were that age. At the same time though, they are still kids. If I were on a jury with an 11 year old facing the DP, no matter how I felt about the DP, I could not bring back a verdict of death. Parental responsibility would go a long way in helping relieve the situation that is now happening, IMO. And stronger punishments, but I can't go along with killing children. Sue Hello, Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This morning on the Today show a representative from Texas was on explaining why he was submitting a bill to have 11 year olds face the DP in Texas when they commit a capital offense. I saw that this morning, too, and was appalled at the thought. I think that there has to be a way to keep these children under the supervision of the cj system and NOT automatically release them when they reach a certain age. Unfortunately I have no answer how this could be done, perhaps after extensive rehabilitation and education and they meet certain standards they then could be released, in stages (?) What do you think? Sooz Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court, Angel Francisco Breard
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, thank you for posting this case on procedural default, where the high Court felt that the issue of the Vienna Treaty had not been preserved because not raised in the lower courts (check me out). I vote that if there is a dissent (or are dissents) in capital cases a stay of execution would result. That do you think? :) LDMF. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ark. To Decide on Delusional Inmate
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I find this grisly. Please check out my take: forced medication to put someone in a state where he can be executed? I go no farther. Tell me it isn't true. LDMF. --Sue Hartigan wrote:-- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ark. To Decide on Delusional Inmate PINE BLUFF, Ark. (AP) -- A death row inmate who is delusional when not forced to take anti-psychotic medication pleaded for his life Monday at a hearing on whether the state can execute him during his moments of sanity. Charles Singleton, convicted of killing Mary Lou York at her grocery store in 1979, told the judge that he was mentally ill at the time and that a state prosecutor was out to get him. ``She is trying to kill me,'' Singleton said, gesturing toward Assistant Attorney General Kelly Hill. ``I'm poor. Ms. Hill has all the resources. I have nothing.'' Jefferson County Circuit Judge Fred Davis told Singleton that the hearing wouldn't address whether he was guilty, innocent or insane. The court is to determine whether it's proper for the state to kill Singleton while he's on medication that keeps him sane. In general, courts do not allow insane people to be put to death and have prevented states from medicating prisoners so they'll be sane enough to execute. Last month, two days before Singleton was to be executed by injection, the state's highest court stopped it and ordered the case to the circuit court. His hearing has been held in three stages since March 18. The circuit court's decision is expected by May 22. Singleton, 39, is a paranoid schizophrenic who has had delusions that his death sentence was set aside and that he was being held in prison illegally, doctors said. He had been voluntarily taking the anti-psychotic drugs Prolixin and Cogentin, but when he stopped last summer, a prison medical panel directed that he be forcibly medicated to protect himself and others. Under questioning by Hill Monday, Singleton said he wants to be off the drugs. Dr. Walter Oglesby, a prison psychiatrist, said Singleton's mood changed dramatically when he stopped taking the drugs. ``He over the years had been very friendly,'' Oglesby said. But at a meeting last July, Singleton was ``very hostile and belligerent.'' -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Article on Good Samaritan Law
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A readable article on when and whether doctor's can or should stop to deliver emergency aid, and the legal consequences thereof, can be found at: http://www.medscape.com/time/hippocrates/1998/v12.n03/h1203.03.stei.html Best wishes, :) LDMF. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Kevorkian Lawyer Runs for Mich Gov.
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, does this mean he is entering the primaries? Thx, :) LDMF. --Sue Hartigan wrote:- Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevorkian Lawyer Runs for Mich Gov. LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Geoffrey Fieger, Jack Kevorkian's fiery lawyer, entered the Democratic race for governor Thursday. The personal injury lawyer known for his scorched-earth rhetoric said he wants to protect people's rights to abortion, assisted suicide and mental health care. He also said he can lead the state to a better economy than Republican Gov. John Engler can. ``Why are we rated 27th, behind Ohio, as a desirable place to live?'' he asked. ``Engler has been content with an economy that will catch pneumonia when the national economy catches a cold.'' Fieger, 47, has been protective, loud, intimidating, theatrical, abrasive, foul-mouthed and -- even his critics admit -- highly effective in defending Kevorkian, who has taken part in at least 100 suicides. Kevorkian has been acquitted in three trials covering five deaths. A fourth trial ended last June in a mistrial after Fieger, in his opening statement, accused a prosecutor of tampering with evidence and conducting a witch hunt. He has also called former Oakland County Prosecutor Richard Thompson a madman and likened him to Hitler. Fieger said he wouldn't quit defending Kevorkian during the campaign, but promised the doctor would have no place in his administration. ``If I hired Jack as my health secretary, I'd probably fire him the next day,'' he said. The other Democrats in the race are former state Commerce Director Doug Ross, lawyer Larry Owen and Ed Hamilton, a Chrysler supervisor. Fieger said he is a better candidate because he owes nothing to special interest groups. A spokesman for Engler, who is running for a third term, said Fieger brings nothing except an entertainment value to the race. ``He is definitely not leadership material,'' John Truscott said. ``He knows how to sling barbs and insults, but does he know how to get anything done?'' -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Text of Jones Decision/Sue
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue - thank you for posting this executive summary. Do you happen to
know if the full text is available online? 39 pages would be very long,
but I would like to read it anyway. Perhaps it was posted here and I
missed it. Thanks again, :) LDMF.
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
April 1 This is the full text of the executive
summary of U.S. District Judge Susan Webber
Wright's 39-page memorandum opinion and order
to dismiss Paula Jones sexual harassment suit
against President Clinton and Danny Ferguson.
There are six pages in the summary below;
footnotes are indicated by number in the text and
are reproduced at the end of the document.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Paula
Corbin Jones, seeks civil damages from
William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States, and Danny Ferguson, a
former Arkansas State Police Officer, for
alleged actions beginning with an
incident in a hotel suite in Little Rock,
Arkansas. This case was previously before
the Supreme Court of the United States to
resolve the issue of Presidential
immunity but was remanded to this Court
following the Supreme Court30146;s
determination that there is no
constitutional impediment to allowing
plaintiffs case to proceed while the
president is in office. See Clinton v.
Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997). Following
remand, the President filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissal
of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Ferguson joined in the president's
motion. By Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated August 22, 1997, this Court granted
in part and denied in part the
President's motion. See Jones v.
Clinton, 974 F. Supp. 712 (E.D. Ark.
1997). The Court dismissed plaintiff's
defamation claim against the President,
dismissed her due process claim for
deprivation of a property interest in her
State employment, and dismissed her due
process claims for deprivation of a
liberty interest based on false
imprisonment and injury to reputation,
but concluded that the remaining claims
in plaintiff's complaint stated viable
causes of action. See id. Plaintiff
subsequently obtained new counsel and
filed a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint, which the court
granted, albeit with several
qualifications. See Order of November
24, 1997. 1 The matter is now before the
Court on motion of both the President and
Ferguson for summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff has responded in
opposition to these motions, and the
President and Ferguson have each filed a
reply to plaintiff's response to their
motions. For the reasons that follow, the
Court finds that the President's and
Ferguson's motions for summary judgment
should both be and hereby are granted. 2
I.
This lawsuit is based on an incident
that is said to have taken place on the
afternoon of May 8, 1991, in a suite at
the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock,
Arkansas. President Clinton was Governor
of the State of Arkansas at the time, and
plaintiff was a State employee with the
Arkansas Industrial Development
Commission ("AIDC"), having begun her
State employment on March 11, 1991.
Ferguson was an Arkansas State Police
Officer assigned to the Governor's
security detail.
According to the record,
then-Governor Clinton was at the
Excelsior Hotel on the day in question
delivering a speech at an official
conference being sponsored by the AIDC.
Am. Compl. 7 3 Plaintiff states that she
and a
Text of Jones/Clinton Decision [was Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton]
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mac, Bill, Terry - I have been looking for the full text of the Decision. It seems others have read it, I must have missed it. Can you give me a pointer? I especially want to read about the tort of outrage. I am very uncomfortable when matters of comparative social judgment are not allowed to go to the jury. But until I read the decision, I can't discuss it, so I'd appreciate a lead. Best wishes, :) LDMF. -moonshine wrote:- moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' Terry, I think you need to read the decision. ...Mac Hi Mac, Please don't confuse him with the facts. Bill Afternoon Bill, I don't have to...he's done it to himself. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Is a fetus a person?
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Steve - it seems to me that there are laws that do protect the unborn child in terms to injury to the child. Maybe we can search for that. But where the injury claimed is to the mother, as in this case, it seems to me different. Looking forward to your input. :) LDMF. -Steve Wright wrote:- Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saying is a fetus a person, shouldn't we ask weather a fetus is a viable person and if so, when you kill a fetus by harming the mother you are guilty or assault and attempted murder? Steve === 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /example
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Friday, October 18, 1996 FETUS OR BABY? DUI DRIVER GUILTY IN DEATH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas -- A man who drove drunk into a pregnant woman's car was convicted Thursday of killing the woman's baby, who was born a month and a half premature because of the crash. Jurors were not required to consider whether Krystal Zuniga was a person or a fetus at the time of the accident, but were instructed to decide whether Frank Flores Cuellar caused the crash that resulted in the baby's death. Groups on both sides of the abortion issue closely followed the case, which touched on the question of when life begins. Anti-abortion activists hailed the verdict as a step toward tougher laws against criminals whose actions harm the unborn, while abortion-rights supporters warned it could lead to a new determination of when life begins, leading to the outlawing of abortion. Both sides agreed, however, that the implications of the verdict would remain murky until considered by an appeals court. ``It's too early to know whether or not it's a setback,'' said Pauline Cashion, executive director of the Texas Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Defense lawyers refused to say whether they would appeal. They cited a gag order that remains in effect through sentencing, scheduled for today. Cuellar, 50, faces two to 20 years on the intoxication manslaughter conviction. He also is charged with two felonies relating to the mother: driving while intoxicated and intoxication assault, for which he will be tried later. His defense had asked for the separate trial on the manslaughter count to avoid airing Cuellar's prior DWI convictions. On June 15, Cuellar's blue Chevrolet Blazer veered into the wrong lane and crashed head-on into a car driven by Jeannie Coronado as she returned from a late-night trip to the grocery store. Coronado, 7-months pregnant, gave birth to Krystal by emergency Caesarean section. Weighing 4 pounds and suffering extensive brain damage, Krystal died 44 hours later. When the verdict was read, Coronado clasped her hands together, smiled and nodded. Neither she nor the child's father, Julian Zuniga, would comment. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /example
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATIVE FISCAL NOTE BILL NUMBER: House Bill 594 SHORT TITLE: Fetus Death From Criminal Act SPONSOR(S): Representative Starnes FISCAL IMPACT Yes ( ) No (X) No Estimate Available ( ) (in millions) FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 GENERAL FUND Correction No Fiscal Impact Recurring Nonrecurring Judicial No Fiscal Impact Recurring Nonrecurring TOTAL EXPENDITURES POSITIONS: It is anticipated that approximately 0 positions would be needed to supervise the additional inmates housed under this bill. This is based on inmate to employee ratios, provided by the Division of Prisons, for close, medium, and minimum custody facilities (These position totals include security, program, and administrative personnel.). Close - 2 to 1 Medium - 3 to 1 Minimum - 4 to 1 PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT(S) PROGRAM(S) AFFECTED: Dept. of Correction; Judicial Branch EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1997, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. BILL SUMMARY: FETUS DEATH FROM CRIMINAL ACT. TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IF A PERSON COMMITS OR ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT AND THE CRIMINAL ACT PROXIMATELY RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF A VIABLE FETUS OR A STILLBORN BIRTH. Adds new GS 14-18.2 to provide if person commits or attempts to commit criminal act that proximately causes death of viable fetus or a stillborn birth, person is guilty of (1) a class F felony if criminal act was felony (unless criminal act was felony death by vehicle, in which case offense is class G felony); or (2) a class A1 misdemeanor if criminal act was misdemeanor. Applies to offenses committed on or after Dec. 1, 1997. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY: Judicial Branch According to the Judicial Branch, they expect this bill to have little or no substantial fiscal impact on the court system. The Judicial Branch cannot estimate the number of criminal acts resulting in the death of a fetus. However, they expect that there are relatively few such cases. This bill adds additional charges to existing cases, as opposed to creating new, additional cases. Therefore, the Judicial Branch believes they can handle these additional charges and any new cases that may arise within existing court resources. Department of Correction Based on information received from the Judicial Branch, the Sentencing Advisory and Policy Commission cannot estimate the number of felony or misdemeanor cases that may result from this bill. However, the Sentencing Commission notes that any additional convictions will probably result in persons already being charged with another criminal act. Therefore, the Department of Correction can absorb the few convictions that may arise within existing resources. SOURCES OF DATA: Department of Correction, Judicial Branch; North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FISCAL RESEARCH DIVISION 7334910 DATE: April 28, 1997 PREPARED BY: Andy Willis APPROVED BY: Tom L. Covington Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /example
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Ron - if the word "person" would attach when a fetus becomes viable, able to survive outside of the mother's body, can you relate this to words like "child"? I'm asking because handling this term comes up when doing statutory construction (interpretation). In shott, when would a fetus be a "child"? (At same time as it/she/he would be a [viable] person?). :) LDMF. ---Ronald Helm wrote:- "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Groups on both sides of the abortion issue closely followed the case, which touched on the question of when life begins. This unborn fetus was only one and a half months premature, or about 34 weeks gestation, well past the stage of viability. I don't know why the abortion rights people are concerned, because this pregnancy was well past the 26 week cut off that most states have for restriction of abortion. This pregnancy could have survived outside of the mother and would be alive had no this drunk hit the mother. This one is easy, the difficult cases would be between 20 and 26 weeks gestation, at 20 weeks none will survive if born, at 26 weeks upwards of 80-90% will survive. Ron Women have their faults. Men have only two. Everything they say. Everything they do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Is a Fetus a Person? /example/Doc/Ron
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc - Yes I see your point, but what about the reported fact that the insult/injury was to an *unborn* child? I am thinking about what Dr. Ron posted regarding 'viability' as an indication of personhood, and this fetus was very near birth, as I understand it, but correct me... :) LDMF. --DocCec wrote:- DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-03-29 18:52:12 EST, you write: A man who drove drunk into a pregnant woman's car was convicted Thursday of killing the woman's baby, who was born a month and a half premature because of the crash. In this case the death was not that of a fetus, but that of a baby, albeit one born prematurely. I don't think this really has relevance to the question of the personhood of a fetus. A fetus is unborn. 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: LI Re: Polygraph Testing/Jackie, Sue
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie - wondering about the myth that one would not say or do something under hypnosis or under the influence, that one would not in a respressed way be inclined to do anyway. With the sodium pentathol, hypnosis, and even polygraphs and other analogue techniques, I should think it difficult to tell if arousal states can comfortably be mapped onto deeply held beliefs, or their duals (negations). A hard call? :) LDMF. --Jackie Fellows wrote: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dr. L.: Sodium Penothol is a ultra-short acting barbiturate which induces sleep. Other than that I have no idea what it would be used for, but have seen in movies that it is used as a truth serum. Don't know if that is true or not. :) I have seen people get quite talkative when coming out of it, but I don't know if they were telling the truth or not. And I have heard things that patients have said that I am sure they wouldn't want their spouse to hear. LOL Sue Jackie, Sue - hi - a question: what is the deal with so-called "truth serum?" Is that sodium pentathol? Not sure. But isn't there an injection (usually) that so relaxes a person that the tongue goes wag wag wag? Waiting to be enlightened... :) LDMF. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Any ideas or help would be appreciated
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue - did I miss this - does the criminal Ward case cite to (awknowledge) the civil law allowing a "person" reading to an unborn child? My impression was that you had found inapposite law', that is they are not compatible laws, but they are not being cited in the same case. My impression was that Ward relies on Civil Law (including Family Law) and so the Civil Code bestowing personhood on the unborn could be relevant. But did a lawyer bring this us in Ward. or did the court itself do so sua spone (on its own initiative? I'd thought not, but will go back and look. Let me know! Cheers, :) LDMF. Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dr. L.: Now I am dizzy. LOL On the California Law Page, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html , there are 29 different sections each dealing with different aspects of the law. Family, Civil, Penal, Vehicle, etc. I did find out that it didn't matter if it was a family law, civil law or whatever it could be used in a felony case. In other words just because a law is a civil law, does not mean that it can't be brought into a felony murder case. Is that what you mean. :) That basically is why I am so confused by this decision. They are saying under the family code that a fetus is not a child, and then they are turning around and saying under the civil code that a fetus is a child. I realize that they are using the definition that best suits their purpose in making the law they are referring to, however it can't be two ways, IMO. Either the fetus is a child or it isn't. Sue You don't seem confused to me, Sue, you seem modest. But HERE is confused: in the Ward criminal case they seem to rely on Civil Code, that is Family Law code, do they not? I am not familiar with California Law, but hereabouts Family Law is considered civil code -- and it can be used in conjunction with penal code, which conjoining, however, does not change its character. So THAT's confused. :) :) L. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe 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
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: 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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue - here's one of those paragraphs, snipped from your post, which could keep a bunch of people busy a bunch of years diagramming all the possible (or reasonably posited) states of mind depicted. Did she assist? If so, did she knowingly assist? If she lied, was it a conscious lie or was she passing on a lie? If she concealed, etc. etc. etc. Here come the experts on 'putative mental states' and 'psychology of thought'! Stretching the controversy a bit? Can't help it, I was bitten by the *Law//Issues online forum bug*. :) LDMF. -Sue Hartigan wrote in pertpart: :- Prosecutors are trying to determine if Mrs. Clinton, while a private Arkansas attorney, assisted a series of fraudulent SL land transactions in the mid-1980s carried out by her business partner, the late James McDougal. They're also investigating whether she lied about her work under oath or tried to conceal documents in the Whitewater investigation that was begun during her husband's presidency. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :) Hi Terry - How did WB know that he was naive? This sentence is false. Cheers! :)LDMF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-- Well now, Linda, when William F. Buckley was sued for fraud in the operation of a family business many years ago he testified that he was too naive to know what was going on. The jury naturally bought his protestations of ignorance as any jury would Hillary's. The answer though to all the deep philosophical questions is yes. I refuse to believe Hillary is an idiot like her supporters believe. "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue - here's one of those paragraphs, snipped from your post, which could keep a bunch of people busy a bunch of years diagramming all the possible (or reasonably posited) states of mind depicted. Did she assist? If so, did she knowingly assist? If she lied, was it a conscious lie or was she passing on a lie? If she concealed, etc. etc. etc. Here come the experts on 'putative mental states' and 'psychology of thought'! Stretching the controversy a bit? Can't help it, I was bitten by the *Law//Issues online forum bug*. :) LDMF. -Sue Hartigan wrote in pertpart: :- Prosecutors are trying to determine if Mrs. Clinton, while a private Arkansas attorney, assisted a series of fraudulent SL land transactions in the mid-1980s carried out by her business partner, the late James McDougal. They're also investigating whether she lied about her work under oath or tried to conceal documents in the Whitewater investigation that was begun during her husband's presidency. 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
