Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (653)	3/1/2002 8:05:38 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I figure if there are a million cases on record of perjury about money, there really ought to be a teeny weeny itsy bitsy handful for perjury related to sex. It doesn't mean they resemble the Clinton case very closely. Check out the two cases you just offered, for example. The two cases were interesting. Each involves money-fraud-- the lies were associated not only with sex, but with money. Each of the defendants had perpetrated financial scams related to their sex-lies. One of them, the poster-child case used by the Repubs to imply that the case against Clinton wasn't all that unusual, is the shrink case I remembered. The woman shrink had sex with a veteran whom she was treating for post traumatic stress disorder. He sued, on his own, not put up to it by anyone. He had a credible damage claim. She had lied under oath to get the state instead of herself to be the defendant in a civil suit against her. She damaged her patient and she lied about sex in the course of trying to defraud the state monetarily. The second case of "lying about sex" involved the denials of a minister who was indicted on 27 counts of criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual abuse and child pornography. He had sued a newspaper for libel for reporting that he had engaged in sexual acts with members of his congregation. The newspaper had settled for $50,000.! Understandably, even though he was already in prison, the decision was made to prosecute him for the financially profitable perjury committed to defraud the newspaper out of $50,000. I dare say the local paper was pleased. One does like to please the local paper. The final sentence in the piece you provided the link to unintentionally reveals how very rare sex-lie perjury prosecutions are: One of the prosecutors who handled the Davis perjury case is now on leave from Waller's office — on temporary loan, Waller says, to the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, in connection with the Clinton impeachment issue.