Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue
He only gets 1/4, I said. We can split the rest. After all, we are going
through all the trauma. His is just the results of the trauma.
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Jackie:
>
> Sounds good t
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
Sounds good to me. But we definately need to go after the big bucks,
because Ed is going to want a big percentage of this thing, that is for
sure.
>
> Hi Sue
>
> LOL How about a percentage of what I get??
>
> jackief
--
Two rules in l
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue
LOL How about a percentage of what I get??
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Jackie:
>
> Being your expert witness, it is my opinion that Ed would have a
> lawsuit. You too since you both have suf
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
Well let's look at her resources--the Rutherford Foundation I believe is covering
costs, she has her own defense fund--I'm sure they would be willing to donate for
this worthy cause--a slimeball of a boyfriend. She can draw on her public rela
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
In my case I think there is enough horror in the world. :)
Sue
> Hi Terry
>
> I guess I would make room on my plate if it was me. To me, having my body on
> view for everyone is a more egregious violation than an exposure that occurred
>
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie:
Being your expert witness, it is my opinion that Ed would have a
lawsuit. You too since you both have suffered irreparable harm and
agony. LOL I base this all on my newfound knowledge. :)
Now can we talk about my fee?
Sue
> Hi Sue
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Terry,
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 22:34:41 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>>
>>
>>And JONES IS a good source What a joke. Clinton is more
>credible
>>than J
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:00:40 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>Hi Kathy,
>
>>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>Terry looking at this without taking sides though, wouldn't you agree
>>she has a better c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy,
>Side note your the only one I have seen say anyone on this group is
>shocked by the fact there are photo's. What do you have to back up that
>statement? I haven't seen one person express shock.
Oh, I could go back through the postings but I am not willing t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy,
>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Terry looking at this without taking sides though, wouldn't you agree
>she has a better chance of suing her ex and penthouse for the
>unauthorized pictures of her in a public magazine?
She wouldn't have a ghost of a
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry speaking for myself only, I am not shocked by the fact
consenting people take pictures and films of each other. What I am
surprised about is the fact someone doesn't file a law suit when those
pictures are sold and published. It's illegal to do that u
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
One must admit it's nice to watch those men when their doing their
routine, I know my girlfriends and I would always have a blast going to
the shows :)
DocCec wrote:
>
> DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> In a message dated 98-03-21 15:57:11 EST, you wr
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Doc I'm with you :) I don't have any pictures of me naked either, I
wouldn't allow anyone to take those types of photos! Yet there are
enough scary pictures in the world without having to add mine (G)
DocCec wrote:
>
> DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Terry looking at this without taking sides though, wouldn't you agree
she has a better chance of suing her ex and penthouse for the
unauthorized pictures of her in a public magazine? I can see her winning
that law suit easily. I know I would be doing that if i
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sue how old are those photo's? Do we know? Were they before or after the
alleged incident with Clinton?
Sue Hartigan wrote:
>
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Bill:
>
> I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-22 11:18:12 EST, you write:
<< Hi Doc
It is sociological observation--at least that is what I called it when I went
jackief >>
Hey, that's an even better excuse than art appreciation! Thanks, friend.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscrib
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hi Terry
>I don't think Anita Hill even thought of taking out a suit. Didn't she
offer >to provide information in the senate hearings, but didn't want it public?
Anita Hill provided information in writing to the committee
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc
It is sociological observation--at least that is what I called it when I went
jackief
DocCec wrote:
> DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> In a message dated 98-03-21 15:57:11 EST, you write:
>
> << I went to see the Chippendale Dancers wi
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
I don't think Anita Hill even thought of taking out a suit. Didn't she offer to
provide information in the senate hearings, but didn't want it public? That is
a little different than scouring the laws to find an innovative way to start a
civ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
There is no issue about Jones selling the pictures. She did not. She was
humiliated and disgusted by the sale. I was confused by the same thing that
was done by Tonya Harding's husband who sold a video of her on ther wedding
night. That is why I had a va
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
Somehow I don't think the posing for pictures for a boyfriend is what is at issue
here. I think the problem is how Penthouse obtained them and I guess felt it was
legal to publish them.
jackief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
I congratulate you on your fabulous resources or access to same. :-} Very
few people have the resources to file even one case and must rely on the
greed of lawyers.
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry
>
>I guess I would make room on
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc
I don't have them. I am wondering if Penthouse could legally print them without
some sort of permission from her?? Maybe not.
jackief
DocCec wrote:
> DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> In a message dated 98-03-21 10:04:28 EST, you write
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
I guess I would make room on my plate if it was me. To me, having my body on
view for everyone is a more egregious violation than an exposure that occurred
with only two people in the room (if it is true).
jackief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>
>
>And JONES IS a good source What a joke. Clinton is more credible
>than Jones will ever be.
Care to show your homework, Bill? Those of us who must rely on evidence and
reason do not have the facility to just k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:45:26 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>Hi Terry:
>>
>>OK now we have somewhere to go from, our mutual feelings of Susan
>>McMillian.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
I'm sure that there are some who could help her come up with an
explanation. Probably attack the guy who took the pictures.
Bill
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:22:28 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTEC
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 15:57:11 EST, you write:
<< I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't
say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I
was. >>
Those guys are really gorgeous, aren't they? (Hey, f
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 15:43:12 EST, you write:
<< I don't think Penthouse has the kind of money that either of us would be
asking for these special pictures. :)
Sue >>
Darn!! Another good idea down the drain.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EM
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc:
Our firemen have just sold out their 1999 calender this year already. :)
I went to see the Chippendale Dancers with my daughter, and I wouldn't
say that women weren't interested in this sort of thing. I know I
was.
Playgirl has quite a subsc
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc:
Actually I kinda like my nude pictures, now that I don't have a
boyfriend that my brother threatens to show them to.
I don't think Penthouse has the kind of money that either of us would be
asking for these special pictures. :)
Sue
> LOL Su
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 13:07:42 EST, you write:
<< From my own perspective there does not seem to be a great demand for nude
pictures of many men outside the gay community. The sexual activities of
men do not seem to scandalize the public like those of
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 12:43:00 EST, you write:
<< The only nude photos that I know exist of me are on a bear skin rug.
And to be honest I don't care who sees them. :) So no you aren't
alone. :)
Sue >>
LOL Sue! I have the equivalent of those, t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact
>that things do seem to get added.
>
>First being she took until just a short time before the statue of
>limitations ran out to
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
There are two reasons why I wonder about her story, other than the fact
that things do seem to get added.
First being she took until just a short time before the statue of
limitations ran out to file her claim. If she was so humiliated and
h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>LOL Well I never read their magazines anyway. LOL But I would suspect
>that Penthouse is probably a bit classier, if that is possible, than
>Hustler. :)
It would be extremely difficult not to be.
>
>I don'
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
LOL Well I never read their magazines anyway. LOL But I would suspect
that Penthouse is probably a bit classier, if that is possible, than
Hustler. :)
I don't know if Paula is "lying" or just exaggerating. I do believe
something happened
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>OK now we have somewhere to go from, our mutual feelings of Susan
>McMillian.
>
>This woman, IMO, has hurt Paula Jones more than anything else. Get rid
>of her and maybe there would be more people listen to P
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
OK now we have somewhere to go from, our mutual feelings of Susan
McMillian.
This woman, IMO, has hurt Paula Jones more than anything else. Get rid
of her and maybe there would be more people listen to Paula.
No I am not denying Paula's p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>The one thing about the story that appeared in Penthouse that really
>bothered me was that Susan Carpenter McMillian took that opportunity to
>defend her client, friend, or whatever Paula Jones is to her.
>
>Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><< Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term
> grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting
> a boyfriend take nude pictures of her. >>
>No "for women only" about it on this end, Terry. I'd think the same thing if
>a guy let hi
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Doc:
The only nude photos that I know exist of me are on a bear skin rug.
And to be honest I don't care who sees them. :) So no you aren't
alone. :)
Sue
> I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in
> the firs
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
The one thing about the story that appeared in Penthouse that really
bothered me was that Susan Carpenter McMillian took that opportunity to
defend her client, friend, or whatever Paula Jones is to her.
There just seems to be something wrong w
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 10:59:06 EST, you write:
<< Paula Jones is no doubt a slut - or whatever term
grabs you denoting a lack of puritanical values for women only - for letting
a boyfriend take nude pictures of her. >>
No "for women only" about it on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in
>the first place? Does everyone except me have those?
>Doc
>
People will be glad to know there are none of me. It is not a matter of
morality but of c
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-21 10:04:28 EST, you write:
<< Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting
her body on display to the world?? Or is she?? >>
I suppose it's not fair to wonder why there are nude pix of her available in
th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Then why isn't she suing the former husband for trauma caused by putting her
>body on display to the world?? Or is she??
I would say she has a full plate. Wouldn't you, Jackie?
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to c
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Hi Bill:
> >
> >I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse.
> >Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex ac
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue
Was this spread (no pun intended) before or after the traumatic event in the
hotel room that caused her to suffer sexual aversion?? I am assuming
after--she probably wouldn't be noticed by Playbody until she was a celebrity
of some sort
As lon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse.
A former husband (boyfriend?) sold the pictures.
>But I still wonder how she is going to explain this.
Why should she have to? The pictures weren't made for the deli
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I have no idea how or why she was in Penthouse. But I still wonder how
she is going to explain this. And you know she is going to have to. So
who sold the pictures, and who got the money for this? I do know that
Susan Carpenter McMillian wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hi Bill:
>
>I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse.
>Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in
>there having sex with her boyfriend.
>Sue
And how would you explain
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
I wonder seriously how she is going to explain her spread in Penthouse.
Although I guess that wouldn't be considered the sex act, she is in
there having sex with her boyfriend.
Sue
> Hi Sue,
>
> That one is easy to figure out. They think t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
That one is easy to figure out. They think the money they will get for
their story is well worth the embarrassment they might feel when details
of their personal life is revealed.
I see where Paula Jones now has some doctor saying that h
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
I know, I read that. I have to agree her credibility is shot. Even if
what she said happened, I doubt that anyone is going to believe her now.
Did you hear about the model in New York that came forward saying
Clinton went after her? It has c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Your speculation is as good as anyone else's on this matter. Who knows
what really went through her mind. Now I hear that she and her lawyer
were talking to the Star about them buying her story back in February.
Bill
On Thu, 19 Mar 19
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
LOL you are right about that. :) I used to be able to pretty much tell
exactly when Simpson was going to show up again, because everytime
things got quiet, there he was. Every two weeks for him. :)
This isn't going to go away until they fin
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
I agree I don't think that it would ever leave her mind either. But I
do think that under the circumstances that it would not be the first and
most important thing on her mind either.
I also think that if it did happen, over a period of a coup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:34:28 EST DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>In a message dated 98-03-17 12:07:41 EST, you write:
>
><< I wouldn't be suprised to
> learn that he made some sort of pass at her, >>
>
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sooz:
I was just thinking how I would react in the same circumstance. And
since there was no rape or anything like that, and since they had been
friends for a long time it wouldn't be the sort of thing that would be
the most important thing on my min
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-17 12:07:41 EST, you write:
<< I wouldn't be suprised to
learn that he made some sort of pass at her, >>
In general I find blaming the victim abhorrent, but really -- how many of
these women have allowed themselves to be alone with
Sooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There is one thing though that I have been thinking about. When this
> incident happened her husband killed himself the same day. Could it be
> that after she found out about this, the whole thing with Clinton s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Yes the letters were dated and they were after the alleged incident.
Also, she was very active in campaigning for Clinton's re-election in
'96.
I would think that her tragedy with her husband would have created an
even higher level of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
He came across much better on LKL, IMO, but Bennett doesn't have a very
compelling presentation no matter where he is. The most noticeable
difference was that he was prepared for the LKL appearance and I don't
think he was prepared for th
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
I haven't seen any of the letters. But I wonder do they have dates on
them? Could any of them have been written before the incident?
I think most if not all of these incidents have been blown (pardon the
pun) out of proportion. I do think th
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
Did you see him on LKL last night. I didn't get to see it. :( How did
he come across on there, if you saw it. I sure wouldn't want to be in
any of these guys shoes right now, especially that Press guy who has to
go before all the press peopl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Obviously he wasn't prepared and could offer no evidence that what he was
saying was true. After he had time to collect some evidence to support
him he became a lot more confident in his comments.
Bill
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:12:27 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Now that we've heard about the book deal and seen some of her letters to
Clinton written after the fact I'm tending to believe that Willey greatly
exaggerated her meeting with Clinton that day. I wouldn't be suprised to
learn that he made
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
He just looked like he would rather be anywhere than where he was. He
kept his head down, and just seemed rather flustered about the whole
thing. He did say some things that did make sense. But not many.
I wonder when the grand jury will mak
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
Someone here is lying big time. And now at least we have some of the
transcripts.
I thought that Kathleen Willey was very creditable on 60 Minutes. The
President must have thought so too, because he is finally talking.
Sue
> Hi Kathy,
>
> C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hello Doctor,
That's a good question and I'm not sure of the answer. Certainly there
are things that are revealed in a Grand Jury that would be embarrassing
for some people if they are made public. And that includes more people
than just the tar
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill - will the Grand Jury findings be made public for sure? Have
they been in the past? Thanks for any illumination, and best wishes.:)
LDMF
William J. Foristal wrote:--
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
I agree, Bennett was a very poor spokesman on 60 Minutes. As Kathy said
he used the same words over and over. I got the impression that his
appearance was a last minute decision as he had declined to appear when
they first invited him.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Kathy,
Certainly if the statements Willey made on 60 Minutes are true, then the
President has committed perjury and should resign immediately.
The question is, who is lying? Willey or Willy.
Bill
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 02:11:42 -0500 Kathy E
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Kathy:
You know that I have been waiting for something to come out that really
made sense. Well I think it finally has. I also think that Kathleen
Willey was very credible. :( And his lawyer didn't come across too
good. It looks to me like Clinto
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After watching 60 minutes tonight and thinking back on the official word
from the WH concerning these allegations launched against the Prez, all
I can say with 100% certainity is we have the most bewildered and
shocked president in the History or this country!
76 matches
Mail list logo
