"Jim Hampton" wrote:

I almost agree with you except on that
"clear and present danger". I wouldn't
want my kid to go near that place; then
again, you mention there is no law
against stupidity. Sigh ...


Note we're talking about the subject (young boy) of the current legal
proceedings. Since there were no actual criminal charges in the first
incident ten years ago, and nothing actually proven, it would be difficult
to prove a clear and present danger existed for this boy. However, since
criminal charges now exist and are widely known, it should be easier to
prove a clear and present danger existed when it comes to parents who allow
their kids to sleep with MJ in the future.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/