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.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (884)	1/25/1998 2:42:00 PM
From: Dave Walp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

re: "pattern of behavior" admissible in court. Ever since the feminists got the law changed after Anita Hill went after Justice Thomas such evidence is admissible. Prior to that it was not. Ironic, in my estimation. Dave

To: Janice Shell who wrote (884)	1/25/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Diane	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

Am not clear about whether one is required to answer ANY question at all when under oath. I remember from the OJ trial that it's only in criminal trials that you can plead the 5th and not answer questions. Paula's case is a civil case, so he would not have that option. BTW, I agree that he should have just told the truth, and that if he did, he'd be much better off, but he definitely did have "something to lose" by telling the truth.