Release of Jones papers sought

A coalition of news organisations yesterday asked the judge in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case to make public many pretrial…

A coalition of news organisations yesterday asked the judge in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case to make public many pretrial documents held under seal.

A conservative legal organisation also urged the judge to hold a hearing to determine if President Clinton should be held in contempt of court for obstruction of justice in connection with his deposition in the case.

The Jones case has been the basis for many of the allegations against Mr Clinton, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

"The grand jury testimony of the President and the referral by the Office of Independent Counsel to the US House of Representatives have again made the events giving rise to this suit, and discovery proceedings conducted herein, matters of intense public interest," the news organisations said in papers filed with Judge Susan Webber Wright at Little Rock.

READ MORE

Judge Wright, who dismissed Ms Jones's lawsuit on April 1st, had said she would make elements of the case file public, beginning on September 28th, unless either Ms Jones or Mr Clinton objected. Lawyers for Mr Clinton did not appeal, but an objection by Ms Jones last week automatically stayed Judge Wright's decision.

The media organisations noted that Ms Jones's appeal sought to open the entire file, and argued that all portions not in dispute should thus be released immediately.

The Landmark Legal Foundation, which has been sharply critical of Mr Clinton, said the President's admission of a relationship with the former White House trainee, Ms Monica Lewinsky, contradicted a deposition he gave in the Jones case.

When Ms Jones's lawyers questioned him about Ms Lewinsky, Mr Clinton flatly denied having had a sexual affair with her and said he could not recall ever having been alone with her.

"The record is clear. . . that the President appears to have obstructed the administration of this court's jurisdiction and authority," the foundation said. "The issue is whether this court and the American judicial process are aggrieved victims of an apparently contemptuous scheme perpetrated by the President of the United States."