🚀 go-pugleaf

Just what does this have to do with GENEALOGY??????


Jim_Hunter@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> 
> >
> In article <36D71F3F.4A5D92A6@jhuapl.edu>,
>   jim.hunter@jhuapl.edu. wrote:
> 
> > LOGIC AND SCIENCE WILL BE OUR MORAL DOWNFALL
> > JESUS LOVES YOU
> > I LOVE TO SUCK JERRY FALWELL'S LITTLE OLD COCK
> > I LOVE TO SUCK PAT ROBERTSON'S LITTLE OLD COCK
> > I LOVE TO SUCK OLD MEN AND LITTLE BOYS
> 
> Dear Friends:
> 
> How will we explain to our children that 50 RepubliKKKlan Senators cannot obey
> the very laws they pass and that so-called educators have major problems with
> basic English reading comprehension, particularly the terms "relevant" and
> "material"? See, e.g., "Why Jim an Carol Jo Kennedy <kennjc@teleport.com> Kant
> Reed or Rite" http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=437350479.
> 
> CLINTON DID NOT LIE ABOUT SEX, AND EVEN IF HE DID, A LIE IS NOT "PERJURY"
> UNLESS IT IS "RELEVANT" OR "MATERIAL" TO THE LEGAL PROCEEDING. 18 U.S.C. ��
> 1621(1) and 1623(a) respectively provide:
> 
> "Whoever * * * having taken an oath * * * willfully and contrary to such oath
> states or subscribes any MATERIAL matter which he does not believe to be true
> * * * is guilty of perjury." [Emphasis supplied for retarded Republicans.]
> 
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html.
> 
> "Whoever under oath * * * in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court
> or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false MATERIAL
> declaration * * * knowing the same to contain any false MATERIAL declaration,
> shall be fined under this title or imprisoned[.]" [Emphasis supplied for
> retarded Republicans.]
> 
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1623.html.
> 
> Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence further provides:
> 
> "Evidence which is NOT RELEVANT is NOT ADMISSIBLE." [Emphasis supplied for
> retarded Republicans.]
> 
> http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/fre/query=[jump!3A!27rule401!27]/doc/{@62}?
> 
> Judge Wright had ruled that any CONSENSUAL sex with Monica was NOT "RELEVANT"
> or "MATERIAL" to any alleged NON-CONSENSUAL sex with Paula. So even assuming
> arguendo that Clinton did  lie at the deposition about Monica and the cigar,
> the lie was NOT at all  "RELEVANT" or "MATERIAL" to Paula's case, and,
> indeed, Judge Wright DISMISSED Paula's case.
> 
> But wait! There's more! The U.S. House of Representatives ALSO REJECTED the
> impeachment charge of perjury before the Jones civil deposition.
> 
> Likewise, Clinton did NOT lie before the federal grand jury, i.e., commit
> "perjury," because he DID ADMIT to having "inappropriate contact" with Monica.
> 
> So where's the "perjury"?! Remember this when a non-lawyer (or worse, a
> Republican lawyer / liar) farts about "perjury."
> 
> In the words of Homer Simpson: Doh!
> 
> Anyway, please contribute to my legal defense fund as my so-called
> RepubliKKKlan hypocrite friends, Newt "Adulter while Wife Dying of Cancer
> Gangsta" Gingrich, Henry "Adulterer Jekyll" Hyde, Bob "Adulterer and Bumbling
> 'Baby' Killer KKKlansman" Barr, Trent "KKKlan Lyncher" Lott, Bob "Lying
> Louisiana Serial Adulterer" Livingston, Dan "Scumbag Adulterer" Burton,
> Ariana "No Sex with Homosexual Husband" Huffington, and Helen "Adulterer
> Cheatin' " Chenoweth, are too busy wasting our hard-earned tax dollars.
> 
> Love, Linda
> 
> References
> 
> David Johnston and Don Van Natta Jr. "The Independent Counsel: Justice
> Department to Examine Starr Request to Expand Whitewater Inquiry." _The New
> York Times on the Web_. 1999 February 10.
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/021099impeach-starr.html.
> 
> WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has decided to begin an inquiry to
> determine whether Kenneth W. Starr's prosecutors misled Attorney General
> Janet Reno about possible conflicts of interest when they obtained permission
> to investigate the Lewinsky matter in January 1998, Government officials said
> today.
> 
> Among other concerns, the inquiry will focus on whether the prosecutors should
> have disclosed the contacts between Starr's office and the Paula Jones legal
> team in the weeks leading up to Starr's decision to ask Ms. Reno to expand his
> inquiry beyond the Whitewater matter, said the officials, who spoke on the
> condition of anonymity.
> 
> In recent months, documentation has emerged that indicates there were
> conversations between a prosecutor in Starr's office and a lawyer working
> behind the scenes with the Jones legal team from November 1997 to January
> 1998.
> 
> But a series of newly disclosed notes taken at the initial meetings on Jan.
> 15 and Jan. 16, 1998, between Starr's prosecutors and Justice Department
> officials, shows that the prosecutors flatly asserted that there had been no
> contacts with the Jones team.
> 
> For example, Eric H. Holder Jr., the Deputy Attorney General, wrote in his
> three pages of notes of a Jan. 15, 1998, meeting with Starr's prosecutors:
> "They've had no contact with plaintiff's attys."
> 
> Handwritten notes by two other Justice Department officials, Monty Wilkinson
> and Josh Hochberg, corroborate the statements attributed to Starr's
> prosecutors.
> 
> Moreover, notes taken by another participant in the meeting, Steven Bates, a
> prosecutor in Starr's office, indicate that Jackie M. Bennett, one of Starr's
> deputies, told the Justice Department officials: "We've had no contact with
> the plaintiffs' attorneys. We're concerned about appearances."
> 
> The notes have become crucial evidence in the Justice Department inquiry,
> which will be conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility, which
> investigates prosecutorial misconduct. The lawyers' notes became public just
> last month as part of the Senate record of documents related to the
> impeachment trial of the President.
> 
> The truthfulness of Starr's prosecutors is one of several issues that the
> department wants to examine, the Government officials said. Lawyers in the
> ethics office also intend to investigate whether Starr abused his authority to
> convene grand juries, or improperly pressed witnesses, like Ms. Lewinsky, and
> disclosed secret grand jury information to the news media, the officials said.
> 
> Clinton's lawyers and supporters have long contended that there was collusion
> between Starr's office and the conservative Jones lawyers, noting that Linda
> R. Tripp found her way to the Office of Independent Counsel through a group
> of private lawyers who performed legal work on the Jones case. Starr has
> insisted that his office sought permission from Ms. Reno to expand his
> jurisdiction when he learned of allegations that President Clinton's close
> friend, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., was helping Monica S. Lewinsky find a job in
> exchange for her silence as a possible witness in the Jones lawsuit.
> 
> Charles G. Bakaly 3d, a spokesman for Starr's office, would not comment on the
> Justice Department's plans to start an investigation. But Bakaly said that the
> notes showed that prosecutors supplied the Justice Department with a thorough
> status report on the then-nascent inquiry.
> 
> "I don't know how else to put it," Bakaly said. "There was no misleading of
> Justice. This was a very fluid evolving situation. Unlike most public
> corruption cases, this one was ongoing felonies were still possibly being
> committed."
> 
> This latest inquiry has exacerbated tensions that have existed between the
> Justice Department and the Office of Independent Counsel almost since the
> beginning of the Lewinsky scandal.
> 
> At one point last spring, Ms. Reno asked her senior aides to research whether
> she had the authority to discipline Starr in some way that stopped short of
> removing him, according to a former Justice Department official who spoke on
> condition of anonymity.
> 
> Some aides told her that it would be a mistake, comparing it to the "Saturday
> Night Massacre" when President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate
> special prosecutor Archibald Cox in October 1973.
> 
> But, the official said, Ms. Reno shot back: "I'm not asking you to make a
> political judgment. I'm asking you to make a legal judgment."
> 
> Deepening hostilities between the Justice Department and Starr's office
> delayed the start of the new ethics inquiry. The ethics investigators
> recently wrote to Starr outlining the scope and authority for the
> investigation, the officials said. Starr's prosecutors are challenging the
> inquiry, asserting that the Attorney General does not have the authority to
> delve into highly sensitive grand jury material or investigative decisions
> that led Ms. Reno to refer the case to Starr.
> 
> Ms. Reno's aides have said that investigative authority is implied by language
> in the independent counsel statute, which gives the Attorney General the sole
> responsibility to remove an independent prosecutor.
> 
> Over time, Justice Department officials, including Ms. Reno, have become
> troubled by what they view as possible violations of Justice Department
> guidelines. From issues like calling the Secret Service before the grand jury
> to the crossfire over leaks to the news media, Starr's prosecutors and
> Justice Department officials have feuded privately.
> 
> "As time went on, people became more and more frustrated with him," the
> Justice Department official said of Starr. "He seemed less concerned with
> Department of Justice policies."
> 
> The ethics lawyers are trying to determine whether prosecutors in Starr's
> office had a vested interest in the outcome of the Jones case, an interest
> that would have undercut their ability to impartially investigate allegations
> related to the lawsuit. If that conflict existed, the officials said, it
> would have been an important factor as Ms. Reno weighed whether to recommend
> to a three-judge panel that Starr take on the Lewinsky matter.
> 
> At this point, the ethics unit of the Justice Department must determine
> whether Starr and his prosecutors violated departmental rules and
> prosecutorial guidelines. Their findings could lead to recommendations for
> disciplinary action, like reprimands or suspension of employment.
> 
> The relationship between Ms. Reno and Starr began as a wary but cordial one
> that a Government official compared to "Thatcher and Gorbachev."
> 
> At times, Ms. Reno has expressed exasperation over Starr's conduct, fuming
> over letters sent by Starr's prosecutors accusing the Justice Department of
> trying to undercut the inquiry.
> 
> Starr's prosecutors had also grown angry and suspicious about Ms. Reno's
> aides, suggesting that the Justice Department was under the control of the
> White House and had quietly tried to squelch Starr's effort, the officials
> said.
> 
> Since October, several news organizations have reported how Starr's office
> first learned about the Lewinsky matter. On Jan. 8, 1998 - four days before
> Linda R. Tripp contacted Starr's office - Jerome M. Marcus, a Philadelphia
> lawyer who did extensive work for the Jones legal team, informed Paul
> Rosenzweig, a prosecutor in Starr's office, about the Lewinsky accusations.
> 
> The early tip was not disclosed in Starr's 445-page referral to Congress. Nor
> was it disclosed to the Justice Department. And The New York Times reported
> last month that there were several conversations between Marcus and
> Rosenzweig from November 1997 to January 1998.
> 
> David E. Kendall, one of the President's personal lawyers, complained to Ms.
> Reno in October that "very serious questions" were raised about those
> contacts.
> 
> The allegations of collusion prompted lawyers at the Justice Department to
> turn their attention to their own recollections, and their own handwritten
> notes, of statements made by Starr's representatives on Jan. 15, 1998,
> officials said today.
> 
> One former Justice Department lawyer said in an interview that Ms. Reno was
> especially disappointed in the fact that the early phone call was not shared
> with her senior aides in January 1998.
> 
> Last month, The New York Times reported that Marcus was the leader of a small
> secret group of lawyers working behind the scenes on the Jones case. Marcus
> drafted legal documents and was involved in many of the most important
> strategic decisions in the Jones lawsuit, according to billing records in the
> Jones case and interviews with other lawyers who worked with him.
> 
> Marcus recruited other conservative lawyers to assist with his efforts,
> approaching among others, Paul Rosenzweig, who briefly considered doing work
> for Ms. Jones in 1994, the billing records show, but decided not to.
> 
> In November 1997, Rosenzweig joined Starr's office, where he and Marcus had
> several conversations about the Jones case, said a lawyer familiar with their
> discussions.
> 
> Bakaly, the spokesman for Starr, has adamantly denied any suggestion of
> collusion. When Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Nov.
> 19 of last year, he was asked by the chief counsel for the minority, Abbe D.
> Lowell, about the "substantial contacts" that Starr had had with Jones
> lawyers.
> 
> In a series of questions, Lowell tried to suggest that Starr should have
> revealed the contacts to the Justice Department in January 1998, and that
> Richard W. Porter, a partner of Starr's at the law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had
> declined a request to represent Ms. Jones.
> 
> "I know Richard Porter; I've had communications with him from time to time,"
> Starr testified.
> 
> Barisic, Sonja. "Falwell: Antichrist May Be Alive." Yahoo! News/AP. 1999
> January 16, 2:02 AM ET.
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/ap_us/story.html?s=v/ap/19990116/us/f
> alwell_antichrist_3.html.
> 
> Schmitt, Eric. "Impeachment Controversy Heats Up on Several Fronts." _The New
> York Times on the Web_. 1998 October 30.
> http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+site+10028+0+w
> AAA+impeachment%7Eand%7Ehistorians
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of constitutional scholars and historians, and the man
> who presided over the Watergate impeachment proceedings, on Thursday
> criticized the inquiry into President Clinton, as House Democrats and
> Republicans became entangled in a request for more documents.
> 
> Democrats asked Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for material they said could
> shed light on Starr's decision to expand his inquiry to Clinton's affair with
> Monica Lewinsky, and on whether audiotapes that Linda Tripp provided to Starr
> had been altered.
> 
> With elections that could fuel or dampen Republicans' appetite for impeachment
> less than a week away, the maneuvering by Republicans and Democrats reflected
> how they are gearing up for the end game.
> 
> The confusing and contentious exchange came as more than 200 constitutional
> scholars said the accusations against Clinton did not warrant impeachment.
> 
> Among those signing a petition circulated on the Internet were well-known
> legal experts like Ronald Dworkin of New York University and Laurence Tribe
> of Harvard University, as well as conservative-leaning academics like Stephen
> Macedo of Syracuse University and Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas.
> 
> The scholars' sentiment was echoed by former Rep. Peter Rodino, D-N.J., who
> as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 presided over the
> impeachment proceedings against President Richard M. Nixon.
> 
> Rodino, who has said little about the current scandal, told a New Jersey
> television program this week that if no new evidence emerged, "I would say
> that this does not rise to that level where we have to consider it to be a
> ground to remove from office the president of the United States."
> 
> Hyde has repeatedly invoked Rodino, who is now 89, as a paragon of fairness,
> and intentionally patterned the committee's procedures after those the House
> Judiciary Committee adopted for the Watergate proceedings.
> 
> In other academic quarters, more than 400 historians, including Stephen
> Ambrose and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., released a statement Wednesday calling
> on the public to oppose the impeachment process.
> 
> "If carried forward, they will leave the presidency permanently disfigured and
> diminished, at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress," the
> statement said.
> 
> Republicans have rescheduled a hearing for Nov. 9 to discuss the history of
> impeachment. But Democrats want the hearing to focus on what constitutes an
> impeachable offense.
> >
> >
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own