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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TexAG who wrote (12444)	8/20/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

* OFF TOPIC RETORT ... SKIP IF YOU WISH * I will take that one on ... Based on the case as I know it, Clinton had no duty to disclose any knowledge he had about Monica's truthfulness. And that is IF they were in court. Where they were was in the Grand Jury. Different set of rules, different set of duties (Basically no duty whatsoever). No, there was no disbarable offence that I can see. As to the sexual apetites of the other presidential officeholders ... We did not have the media coverage we have today, but come on. These things were no secret. As to expecting a higher standard from our president, the constitution guarrantees "Equal Protection under the Law". No one is held to a different standard than anyone else. If you don't like your elected officials, you cannot put them in jail, but you can vote them out of office next time around. As to Monica, IF there was a broken law, then the analysis does not stop there. It has to be a SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Paula Jones' case was dismissed as frivolous ... Rules of Civil Procedure #12b6. So, even if he did lie about it, since the case was dismissed, there was no justice to be obstructed! That item was not substantial in the case involved. Yes, there is a fuzzy line which the court must interpret between what is bad and what is too bad, and there is no finely defined line you can look up on a chart, but that is the way our legal system is. Spitting on the sidewalk may be against the law, but if you do it in a torrential rainstorm, it is insignificant. As to the starving masses, just today I received a Chicken Soup for the Soul that I quote here for your consumption and reflection. I believe it is on point! QUOTED: A friend of ours was walking down a deserted Mexican beach at sunset. As he walked along, he began to see another man in the distance. As he drew nearer, he noticed that the local native kept leaning down, picking something up and throwing it out into the water. Time and again he kept hurling things out into the ocean. As our friend approached even closer, he noticed that the man was picking up starfish that had been washed up on the beach and, one at a time, he was throwing them back into the water. Our friend was puzzled. He approached the man and said, "Good evening, friend. I was wondering what you are doing." "I'm throwing these starfish back into the ocean. You see, it's low tide right now and all of these starfish have been washed up onto the shore. If I don't throw them back into the sea, they'll die up here from lack of oxygen." "I understand," my friend replied, "but there must be thousands of starfish on this beach. You can't possibly get to all of them. There are simply too many. And don't you realize this is probably happening on hundreds of beaches all up and down this coast? Can't you see that you can't possibly make a difference?" The local native smiled, bent down and picked up yet another starfish, and as he threw it back into the sea, he replied, "Made a difference to that one!"