About *THAT* quote
mitcho
> decision of the court. He uses the quote there. Presuming this guy
> exists, I think no-one in their right mind would falsify a quote in a
> court document.
Why assume he is in his right mind? He's running for Congress after
all.
Mitcho
Jim Everman
>
> Herein is official sources of said quote---check it out.
<snip>
> Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.
>
> http://www.perkel.com which belongs to a Democratic candidate for
> Congress.
<more snip>
> . . . Presuming this guy
> exists, I think no-one in their right mind would falsify a quote in a
> court document.
Is it safe to assume that you also think politicians never make
mistakes?
Or are in their "right mind"?
--
Jim Everman mailto:eve...@Anet-STL.com
http://www.Anet-STL.com/~everman/
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
Brian Macke
>At http://www.perkel.com/congress/plead.htm he starts by saying
>"Marc Perkel, Democratic Candidate for Congress for the 7th district
>of Missouri announces today, 09-14-98 that he has filed a federal
>civil rights lawsuit against the United States House of
>Representatives asking the court for an order to remove
>X-rated material from Kenneth Starr's Independent Counsel
>report.
You know, I don't expect a lot of people outside the midwest to find this
as funny as I do, but this provides even MORE evidence that Missouri is
pretty far down on the IQ scale.
>and at:
>http://www.perkel.com/congress/recon.htm there is a document dated 21
>Sept (last Monday) which seems to be an appeal against an earlier
>decision of the court. He uses the quote there. Presuming this guy
>exists, I think no-one in their right mind would falsify a quote in a
>court document.
Again, the man is from Missouri. That instantly nullifies any previous
truths, laws, and reasons of the world around us.
>janice
--
-Brian James Macke ma...@strangelove.net
<http://www.avalon.net/~macke/> The Prophet
"In order to get that which you wish for, you must first get that which
builds it." -- Unknown
Jim Everman
> You know, I don't expect a lot of people outside the midwest to find this
> as funny as I do, but this provides even MORE evidence that Missouri is
> pretty far down on the IQ scale.
Thank you (note SIG). Where are you from?
Phil Edwards
>
> Herein is official sources of said quote---check it out.
> Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.
>
> http://www.perkel.com which belongs to a Democratic candidate for
> Congress.
I'll say this, that's one hell of a collection of links.
Phil "and a big Hi to catherine yronwode" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth
"Even not knowing what you are talking about,
I can't figure out what you are talking about." - Bob Hiebert
Don Erickson
>
>You know, I don't expect a lot of people outside the midwest to find this
>as funny as I do, but this provides even MORE evidence that Missouri is
>pretty far down on the IQ scale.
Yup. Shore wish I lived in Iowa where smart pepul like yew live.
-Don 'ex-Kansan' Erickson
--
.sig wasn't all that impressed with the level of intellect in Iowa City,
Iowa even before this shining post lowered the standard
janice
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of
sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide
the media with pornographic material while pretending it has some
redeeming social value under the public's 'right to know'."
Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.
http://www.perkel.com which belongs to a Democratic candidate for
Congress.
At http://www.perkel.com/congress/plead.htm he starts by saying
"Marc Perkel, Democratic Candidate for Congress for the 7th district
of Missouri announces today, 09-14-98 that he has filed a federal
civil rights lawsuit against the United States House of
Representatives asking the court for an order to remove
X-rated material from Kenneth Starr's Independent Counsel
report.
and at:
http://www.perkel.com/congress/recon.htm there is a document dated 21
Sept (last Monday) which seems to be an appeal against an earlier
decision of the court. He uses the quote there. Presuming this guy
exists, I think no-one in their right mind would falsify a quote in a
court document.
janice
Robert Bunn
>Herein is official sources of said quote---check it out.
>
>"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of
>sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide
>the media with pornographic material while pretending it has some
>redeeming social value under the public's 'right to know'."
>
>Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.
Checked it out.
<cut&paste from page>
Additionally, it has been reported that in an interview in 1987 with Dianne
Sawyer, Kenneth Starr stated:
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of sex acts.
Our society should be purged of the perverts who
provide the media with pornographic material while pretending it has some
redeeming social value under the public's 'right to
know.' Pornography is pornography, regardless of the source."
</cut&paste>
"It has been reported that . . . "
That says a lot right there. It says that this is *not* a legal document,
because no lawyer would hang a stolen hat, let alone a legal point, off of a
non-cite like that.
It says "I read on the net that . . . " or "A guy I know told me that . . . "
It says that the author has no primary source and can't properly cite a
secondary source. That makes it hearsay.
It says that what you cite as "official sources" of said quote are, in fact,
not "sources" at all. The wording makes it clear that he is relying on another
contemporary source. If he were the "official source" of the quote, he would
have used wording more along the lines of "As I told a reporter from Blah
Magazine, I found this quote in my complete archive of transcripts of every
_60 Minutes_ ever aired. The show in question aired on [day,date], 1987. I
have the videotape and am prepared to show it on request."
As far as the merits of the assumption that nobody in his right mind would lie
in a court document, consider that the law against it exists. Laws don't come
into existence without at least a *perceived* problem. Perjury laws in the US
cannot, mathematically, be more than about 200 years old. That means that at
least as of 200 years ago, they still thought that enough people in their
right minds would consider giving false evidence that they needed to legislate
against it. Consider also whether Hawaii has a state law against perjury and
it will tell you whether it was still a concern a mere fifty years ago. Look
at your newspaper or television today to see the face of a well known American
politician widely held to be in his right mind, yet still considered likely to
have lied in a court document.
Now, comparing "It has been reported that . . . " coming from someone who's
out to get his name in the papers by filing a lawsuit, against "We don't have
a tape of this; Mr. Starr was never *on* _60 Minutes_." coming from a network
executive, well, I can't think what the network executive could possibly have
to gain by covering up such footage; on the other hand, I could see
considerable advantage to the network if they could air such footage on their
own nightly news without releasing it to the other networks. My conclusion
from this evidence is that:
*the network executive's voracity is likely;
*Marc Perkel may or may not exist;
*If he does exist, he may or may not actually be filing a lawsuit (I haven't
heard of it on any other media, and clintonilia are a news hot commodity these
days);
*If he is filing a lawsuit, or motion for injunction, or whatever, then his
research was insufficiently rigorous to the point of laughability, and it's no
wonder the motion was denied (as he reports at the top of his page);
*Ken Starr almost certainly never said that;
*And if he *did* say that, it wasn't on _60 Minutes_ that he said it.
Anyone care to comment on the validity of my conclusions from the evidence
presented?
Robert Bunn --> ada...@glasscity.net
tinlc !01473
SPAM costs YOU money! see how you can help at http://www.cauce.org
---
I am Murkowski of Borg. You will be aSPAMilated.
Oscar Bartos
> *Marc Perkel may or may not exist;
> *If he does exist, he may or may not actually be filing a lawsuit (I haven't
> heard of it on any other media, and clintonilia are a news hot commodity these
> days);
> *If he is filing a lawsuit, or motion for injunction, or whatever, then his
> research was insufficiently rigorous to the point of laughability, and it's no
> wonder the motion was denied (as he reports at the top of his page);
> *Ken Starr almost certainly never said that;
> *And if he *did* say that, it wasn't on _60 Minutes_ that he said it.
>
> Anyone care to comment on the validity of my conclusions from the evidence
> presented?
Salon magazine contacted both Sawyer's people as well as CBS. They both say the same
thing: said interview never occurred. I agree with your assessments and suggest that
Mr. Perkel is either a complete bonehead or a not very good prankster.
Another thing: I think most pornographers would claim that it's a freedom of speech
issue, not a "public's right to know" issue, when justifying why they do what they do.
Brian Macke
>Salon magazine contacted both Sawyer's people as well as CBS. They both say the same
>thing: said interview never occurred. I agree with your assessments and suggest that
>Mr. Perkel is either a complete bonehead or a not very good prankster.
>Another thing: I think most pornographers would claim that it's a freedom of speech
>issue, not a "public's right to know" issue, when justifying why they do what they do.
Anyone found a URL from CBS or news wire that debunks this quote? It's
running rampant where I'm at and it's getting downright insane. I try to
explain to people that no one would have given a damn about Starr back in
1987, and that many people have contacted CBS about it - but they just
label me a "Clinton Basher" and go about their merry little ways. Makes me
wish I could dig up a quote from Starr on Gun Control...
Alan Bostick
> and at:
> http://www.perkel.com/congress/recon.htm there is a document dated 21
> Sept (last Monday) which seems to be an appeal against an earlier
> decision of the court. He uses the quote there. Presuming this guy
> exists, I think no-one in their right mind would falsify a quote in a
> court document.
I think this qualifies as "vector", not as "source".
Perkel says, specifically, "Additionally, *it has been reported* that in
an interview in 1987 with Diane Sawyer . . . " (emphasis added).
It looks to me like Perkel received early on a copy of the same email that
so many of the rest of us had. Notice that he says *nothing* about
60 MINUTES.
I think Perkel, like many other people, succumbed to the temptation to
believe and pass along the misinformation.
--
Alan Bostick | LIVE ONE: Is this a game of chance?
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | W.C. FIELDS: Not the way I play it, no....
news:alt.grelb | (from MY LITTLE CHICKADEE)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Brian Macke
> .sig wasn't all that impressed with the level of intellect in Iowa City,
>Iowa even before this shining post lowered the standard
Glad to be of service. Please feel free to respond after that clue comes in
on backorder.
Every midwestern state derides at least one of its bordering states. Iowa
picks on Missouri - big deal. I'm not FROM Iowa, I only live here and
that's only for a short while longer. But while I'm here, I'll take as many
oppotunites to ridicule Missouri... esp. in the face of such easy material
as www.perkel.com.
Becca Ward
> In article <6ug0qh$cgf$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> "janice" <jan...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > and at:
> > http://www.perkel.com/congress/recon.htm there is a document dated 21
> > Sept (last Monday) which seems to be an appeal against an earlier
> > decision of the court. He uses the quote there. Presuming this guy
> > exists, I think no-one in their right mind would falsify a quote in a
> > court document.
That's a sweetly innocent view of the standard of behavior of those of us
laboring in the legal industry. Admittedly Mr. Perkel takes great pains to
portray himself as a non-lawyer, a little guy standing up to the unjust
judicial system. But I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see even a
practicing attorney craft a falsified quote, a selectively misquoted
attribution, a misrepresentation of evidence, or a complete misdescription
of law in a court document.
In fact, the past month of my life has been spent on a case in which we
learned early that everything stated by opposing counsel in his court
documents should be double-checked, word for word, precisely because of
the rather questionable reliability of the gentleman's "understanding" of
the facts/law.
Given Mr. Perkel's artful misportrayal of the holding of _In re Oliver
North,_ -- a 1994 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, -- 16
F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1994), I wouldn't put it past him to manufacture
something.
On the other hand, in this case, as Alan Bostick points out, Mr. Perkel
seems to be vectoring the quote, rather than creating it, in his Motion
for Reconsideration. (According to his Web page, he has filed a Notice of
Appeal to the 8th Circuit; I haven't been able to access the local
district court's on-line docket to see whether the appeal has been
docketed yet.)
Becca Ward
--
Semen, semen, all we ever get is semen. Seven different
kinds. Occasionally we get pus. -- Maggie Newman --
Harold Hallikainen
> Salon magazine contacted both Sawyer's people as well as CBS. They both say the same
> thing: said interview never occurred.
Do you have a link to where this is referenced to in Salon Magazine, or
a reference from Starr or CBS?
Thanks!
Harold