[Vision2020] Craig's official statement

[Sunil Ramalingam]

On behalf of all lawyers and law school graduates yet to be found trawling 
for love in public toilets, I must insist that all references to Craig 
having a law degree cease immediately.

However, I should draw the listserve's attention to the fact that there is 
an Idaho case involving a man looking for such companionship in a Kootenai 
County restroom, in a rest area.

State v. Limberhand, 117 Idaho 456, (Ct. App.1990)

What a great name for a case!

Sunil

>From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>
>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>CC: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:38:26 -0700
>
>I think you are right.  I was on campus when Craig graduated with his 
>Bachelor's degree and I don't remember that he returned for a law degree. 
>He was on the U of I debate team and was Class President, but if he got an 
>advanced degree, I don't believe it was from U of I. And he was pompus even 
>then...but obviously popular and plenty bright.
>
>I remember lobbying him in the Idaho legislature when he voted against the 
>kindergarten bill.  Felt children were better off at home with a mother who 
>stayed there.  Things haven't changed much have they?
>
>Sue
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunil Ramalingam" 
><sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>
>
>>I don't believe Larry Craig has a law degree.
>>
>>Sunil
>>
>>
>>>From: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
>>>To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>>>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:37:49 -0700
>>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>That Craig merely touched someone else's foot seems to go against the
>>>information in the police report that Tom posted, as well as information 
>>>on
>>>the
>>>CNN website found here:
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html
>>>
>>>Tell me, why would they charge Craig for "lewd conduct" if all he did was
>>>touch another man's foot with his own foot? Why would Craig -- someone 
>>>with
>>>a law degree -- plead guilty if this is all that happened? It doesn't add
>>>up.
>>>
>>>Notice that on the CNN website it says: "A police officer who arrested 
>>>him
>>>June 11 said Craig peered through a crack in a restroom stall door for 
>>>two
>>>minutes and made gestures suggesting to the officer he wanted to engage 
>>>in
>>>'lewd conduct.' ... 'Craig would look down at his hands, "fidget" with 
>>>his
>>>fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again,' Karsnia
>>>wrote in
>>>documents accompanying the arrest report."
>>>
>>>Tell me, do you give Michael Vick the benefit of the doubt? Do you say,
>>>"Well,
>>>he just plead guilty in order to save himself some trouble. That doesn't
>>>mean
>>>he is guilty of any crime." Or do you take his case for what it is, i.e., 
>>>a
>>>genuine admission of guilt. And if you treat Vick differently, why?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Joe Campbell
>>>
>>>---- lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>=============
>>
>>
>>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>