|
www.justiceforchandra.com Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
laskipper
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject: Another tidbit for Atty LiCalsi |
|
|
Condit's mother-
Excerpt:
Condit has denied having a romance with Chandra, and his spokesman,
Randy Groves, declined to comment on the latest reports, saying he
didn't want to distract from efforts to find the missing woman.
"We are not going to feed a media frenzy," he said.
In Ceres, Calif., the congressman's mother, Jean, strongly denied her
son had an untoward relationship with Chandra.
"The news media are vultures," she fumed. "They are trying to destroy
him. They're lying."
Copyright 2001 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
end excerpt
http://www.nypostonline.com/news/nationalnews/27487.htm
New York Post
June 8, 2001
INTERN CALLED POL BEFORE VANISHING
By NILES LATHEM, DAVID K. LI, and ANDY GELLER
**
The above excerpt shows that even Condit's mother Jean was accusing the 'news media ' (NOT DUNNE) of trying to destroy his career. That was in June of 2001- well before Dunne said word 1.
News flash to the Condit Clan- you can only be 'destroyed' one time.
BTW, Benn- I just got the magic double spacing too!
ls |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blondie
Joined: 10 Oct 2003 Posts: 567
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LiCalsi should ask him if he was EVER in Chandra's Apartment building.
Also does he know or has he ever met Denis Edeline. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that has came up before about Condit ever being in Chandra's apartment. I think he was too smart for that, but he did visit Joleen's (Peanuts) apartment in San Francisco, according to Vince Flammini.
It probably would not hurt for LaCalsi to ask anyway.
benn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The difference is that Joleen had worked for Condit and his visits would be attributed to work if it came down to it. Of course, he made sure no one besides his driver Flammini knew enough to ask questions.
I make the case in Murder on a Horse Trail that Chandra moved into the Newport just before "meeting" Condit with Jennifer Baker, where Baker was offered a volunteer internship that was a requirement of her and Chandra's Masters in Public Adminstration.
Chandra's internship instead was a paid one with the public relations office with the Bureau of Prisons, arranged by phone when she was still in Sacramento with an internship with the governor's staff. Chandra and Jennifer were getting the same degree, but notice how Chandra's internship particulars were so much different than a normal student's internship.
Joyce Chiang had also lived in the Dupont Circle area where Chandra moved, and Condit lived a few blocks away in Adams Morgan. Chandra's apartment was owned by a former California congressman's aide.
Is it just coincidence that Chandra moved close to Condit before secretly dating him? I doubt it.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These questions bring up another question that I don't remember seeing here yet. Will LaCalsi call witnesses to testify? Can he question Vince Flammini? Of course Flammini said he did not know Chandra, but he did know a lot of other things that Condit did. It seems that if someone is being sued for 10 million dollars that the defendant does have the right to ask a lot of questions. Lin Wood can not just say "oops you slipped, Mr. Dunne, now pay us."
LaCalsi might be able to do a lot of "fishing" in his questioning. The biggest question would be is why should Dunne pay Condit anything? Then it seems Condit would have to prove whatever his written charges are.
benn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
LaCalsi might be able to do a lot of "fishing" in his questioning
That's exactly what you don't do in questioning, and which the magistrate will not allow. I am quite sure LiCalis will not be fishing. he has specific things to establish, and he will ask questions that that form a basis for for establishing those points for Dunne's defense.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
rd, I was using the term fishing sort of loosely as a not too technical term. I know they have to stick to the legalese, which is why I posted Julie's article.
benn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's an important point, because Condit's defense is that all questions about his behavior are fishing. It's not legal fine points. It's the very basis of his refusal to answer questions, one which he uses to keep from being investigated.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 2136 Location: Sacramento, CA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but probably most of what is going on is being coached by Lin Wood. I think Wood has his own problems because Condit is probably not being any more truthful with him than with anyone else.
I think that Condit would have trouble trying to prove that Dunne caused him any financial loss because Condit's world had crumbled long before Dunne came along. Whether she wanted to or not Chandra exposed Condit. Before then he was living on borrowed time, just lingering on in Congress until someone did expose him. The California politicians began dumping him after the Connie Chung interview. My Congressman, Bob Matsui, is one Democrat that did not stop supporting Condit. Matsui's widow won her husband's seat in Congress, and I think she has already been sworn in.
benn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
While that is true, benn, I believe that LiCalsi can and will show that Dunne had every right to relate the information he had been given with some appropriate qualifications as he did, that he didn't know first hand but given the way Condit was acting he had every reason to believe them.
Damages to Condit is only considered if Dunne actually slandered Condit. I in no way believe that Dunne didn't have justification for his statements and therefore slandered Condit.
Requirements for slander include knowingly telling damaging falsehoods about the complaintant, which I do not believe Dunne knowingly did.
The requirements are further extremely limited for public figures, especially politicians. Imagine all the things that have been said about politicians in the history of our country. Now imagine everyone who said something damaging that was untrue being successfully sued for slander. It has never happened, deliberately so based on protection of free speech to discuss our public officials!
There is no slander, and therefore there is no damages. How far Condit had already fallen is only relevant if one believes Dunne damaged Condit.
Dunne may have been told the wrong details, but I think most people agree he had a good basis for saying it.
Thus it is not slander, and there are no damages done to Condit by Dunne, minimal or otherwise. I think a jury will agree with us.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3225
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
rd said, How far Condit had already fallen is only relevant if one believes Dunne damaged Condit.
Wood is trying to show that Condit was able to sustain a livelihood as a politician until Dunne branded him as being implicated in Chandra's disappearance, so I think it is very significant that Dunne's defense can show otherwise: a) that Condit's ability to sustain a livelihood as a politician was compromised by Condit's own actions and failures to act before Dunne's comments were published and b) that Dunne's comments were, as you said, rd, appropriately made. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laskipper
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been wondering about Dunne having some liability to disclose the information that he learned about Condit? After all, he is in the public eye and has the public's ear. Doesn't a journalist have some obligation to expose corruption?
As was stated, Condit was done long before Dunne made any mention of the phone call and the 'horse whisperer'.
The Dems wanted him gone- the public believed that he knew more than he was saying and he was acting guilty.
I found articles from June 2001, with various people in the Condit camp stating that the media destroyed Condit. Mike Doyle was quoted in one article. Condit's mother Jean in another and on and on.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this topic, a good barometer of any given issue is found on late night TV. Leno and Letterman were having a field day with Condit, long before Dunne weighed in.
ls _________________ A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
jane quoted an excerpt where I don't make my point well, and everyone needs to understand this point. I should have used the word slandered instead of damaged so it was crystal clear.
First there has to be slander or libel, then monetary damages are considered. Making unflattering statements about someone that are not knowingly false is not slander. There are no damages unless it is slander. The truth may hurt, but it is not damaging someone to say it.
There are two hurdles to clear to show slander. One is that false statements are knowingly made, and second, in Condit's case as a public official, that the protected right to discuss public figures is exceeded in a blatant way that attempts to destroy the public figure. That is what Wood is trying to show.
Making statements that have a reasonable basis, that is, are not knowingly false, is what Dunne did. There is no slander, therefore there are no damages, and because Dunne did not damage Condit with slander it is irrelevant what Condit's public condition was prior to Dunne's statements in December, 2001.
If Dunne were to be found as having slandered Condit, then Condit's public condition at the time would be considered in possibly mitigating monetary damages awarded to Condit. As the case has been made here well, that public position was exceedingly shaky, and a legal argument can be made that one can't damage something that has already self-destructed, even if slanderous.
That argument will never need to be made. It is important to show and prevail on the point that Dunne did not slander Condit, everything he said was reasonable based on Condit's already demonstrated self-destructive behavior.
Dunne did not knowingly tell false stories about Condit, therefore there is no slander and no monetary damages to be awarded, and thus mitigating circumstances will be irrelevant.
That the information about Condit is not flattering is Condit's own fault, not Dunne's, as I'm sure any who judge this will agree with us.
Of course, it will never make it to a trial. Condit dare not pursue his blackmail into areas where he must answer questions. He has taken the Fifth to avoid that to date, and answered only with cunning evasiveness the rest of the time. His time for games is running out.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9273 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bringing to the top for background for second suit.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|