The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:24:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:24:12 EDT
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> >>> It woudl have been politiclaly more smart. But it is stillnto clear
> >>> that the quesiton was phrased with the precison required, or the
> >>> materiality demanded of a perjury conviction. He would have in fact
> >>> been better off refusing to answer on the groudns of immateriality
> >>> and I believe he would have been upheld.
> >>> Vince Brannigan
> He would have had to answer the question. With the objection noted. His
> attorney could have ask for clarification.
he can flat refuse to answer the question. the issue then is whether a judge
It's a deposition.
> >> The law gives the prosecutor the discretion on how he handles a
> >> case. There are lots of reasons not to take a case to trial, and
> >> guilt and innocence are not always the issue. I can assure you in
> >> the criminals courts of this country deals are made every day where
> >> charges are dropped solely based on the finally agreement, not on
> >> guilt or innonace.
> > Sure, not an issue
> It was in your earlier post. You said it would unethical for a prosecutor
> not to proceed on a case. But now its Ok?
no and what I said was
"If the prosecution has the evidence to convict a person of a crime, they either
go forward with a case and get a conviction or they don't .
it is unethical for a prosecutor to make a unilateral declaration that a person
has committed a crime when there has been no plea or conviction."
It is not unethical not to proceed on a case. but because an attorney's opinion
of the value of a case is not evidence it is unethical to refuse to proceed and
then claim that you could have proved the case so the defendant is guilty
despite the failure to go forward
> > because in a lawsuit about non-consensual sex, consensual sex may not
> > be material.
> MAY NOT...BE MAY BE and in the context of this lawsuit, not just
> non-consensual but the manner of obtaining consent was easily an issue.
> Build on top of that, Did you have sexual relations with that woman,
> followed by was it with consent. Then you question her to set up the
> impeachment or rebuttal of his statement. It was material in this case.
OFCS if the manner of obtaining consent is "unlawful" its non consensual. this
was a sexual harassment case. If its so clear, the special prosecutor would
have made the case. he did not.
> Not when it goes to establish a pattern his past conduct, state of mind are
> all relevant issues. The Rape Shield laws of most states only make her(the
> vic.s) past conduct off limits.
he refuses and makes the case to the judge. unfortunately they did not ask the
right questions, so the special prosecutor had no case.
> I have looked at the Cannon of Ethics. Misleading is not grounds for
> disbarment. He was not testifying as an officer of the court, he was not
> there in any capacity other than a defendant answering a deposition. His
> disbarment was not based on the actions of an Attorney engaged in the
> practice of law, but on an illegal act. Convicted or not.
do some research
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee Wants Clinton Disbarred
Saturday, July 01, 2000
By JAMES JEFFERSON Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - A committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court sued
President Clinton on Friday, seeking to strip him of his
law license in an unprecedented disciplinary action against a sitting
The court's Committee on Professional Conduct voted May 19 to sue Clinton
over ``serious misconduct'' in the Paula Jones sexual
harassment case. The panel said that, in a sworn deposition, Clinton gave
misleading answers about his relationship with White
House intern Monica Lewinsky. Friday's brief filing in Pulaski County Circuit
Court asked a judge to find that Clinton ``has conducted himself in a manner
violates the model rules of professional conduct as adopted by the Arkansas
Arkansas Supreme Court Panel Files Suit To
By Steve Barnes
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Reuters) - A committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court
filed suit on Friday to have President Clinton disbarred as a lawyer for
denying his sexual contact with former White House intern Monica
Responding to complaint filed by a federal judge and a conservative public
interest law firm, the committee last month said Clinton had violated conduct
attorneys by denying trysts with Lewinsky while under oath in the Paula Jones
sexual harassment case. The five-page lawsuit charged that Clinton's conduct
''damages the legal profession and demonstrates a lack of overall fitness to
hold a license to practice law''. It also accused Clinton of ``serious
defines the term as involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud and
misrepresentation.'' The lawsuit was accompanied by dozens of pages of
exhibits, including a partial transcript of Clinton's deposition in the Jones
Note that the word "perjury" is not used
> Oh...just because you don't receive a ticket, go to court, be found guilty,
> and pay a fine does not change the fact that you ran a red light.
ok, but it also does ntochange the fact hat you are not a criminal
> Running said red light is a crime.
no it is not. for example if youwere orderd to do so byu a apolice ofiicer , or
even id dnot see the red light due to a tree. that is why we have trials.
> It is a crime whether anyone sees it, whether an action is every taken or
> not. The act is a violation of a prohibited act.That is a crime.
Give a cite for thsi propostion
> You can play on words all day long, but when I mislead my mother, the whipping
> I got was the same as the one for laying too her. She's not a
> lawyer, but she understands a lie but any other name is still a lie. Having
> said all that, I am no longer sure why this thread is even in this
> newsgroup or what the point is. He is no longer President, he had his two
> terms he can't come back, we have enough real issues to deal with, so good
becasue being precise ont he law is important. no one is an unlawful combatent
until someone proves it.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of