After U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright announced that she is considering contempt charges against President Clinton, the Landmark Legal Foundation, a Kansas City -based conservative group, filed a petition urging to judge to decide whether the president gave misleading statements in Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit. Below is the text of Landmark's petition filed September 2, 1998.

IN RE PAULA CORBIN JONES, Plaintiff, v. Case No. LR-C-94-290

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON And DANNY FERGUSON, Defendants.

STATEMENT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

Comes now Landmark Legal Foundation, by and through the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201 and 803 respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the attached documents and immediately take appropriate action to investigate and sanction the apparent improper, if not unlawful, conduct perpetrated on the Court by the President of the United States in his January 17, 1998 deposition supervised by this Court in the above-captioned lawsuit.

Document 1 contains pertinent portions of the President's deposition transcript, subscribed and sworn to on or about January 17, 1998. Document 2 is the Court approved definition of the term "sexual relations" used in the President's deposition. Document 3 is an affidavit on file in the above-captioned civil matter subscribed and sworn to on or about January 7, 1998 by Monica Lewinsky. Document 4 is a transcript of the President's speech to the nation on August 17, 1998. Document 5 is an August 22, 1998 National Journal article (Internet version). Document 6 is an August 19, 1998 Washington Post article (Internet version). Document 7 is an August 23, 1998 opinion article written by Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin and Arthur F. Fergenson published in the Washington Times.

Landmark Legal Foundation respectfully requests that the Court invoke its inherent supervisory powers and its supervisory powers provided by Rule 26(b)(2)(D) and Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., to sua sponte hold a hearing to determine whether the President should be held in contempt of court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 401.

On January 17, 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton submitted to a sworn deposition in the above-captioned matter. Mr. Clinton appeared with his attorney and was questioned by attorneys representing the Plaintiff. United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright presided over the deposition, ruling on various matters including the areas and scope of questioning, definitions of certain terms at issue in the deposition, and objections raised throughout the proceeding.

Document 1 reflects that the Court approved a definition of the term "sexual relations" for use in the President's questioning by Plaintiff's attorney. In an exchange with Plaintiff's attorney, the President represented as follows:

Q."Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No.

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

MR. BENNETT: I object because I don't know that he can remember.

JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, it's real short. He can - I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one.

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."

(Document 1, p. 78.)

Document 3 is the affidavit of Monica Lewinsky, also known as "Jane Doe Number 6." During the course of the President's deposition, the President's counsel referred to Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in the President's presence. Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was presented to the Court in an effort to stave off questioning of the President on his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The relevant exchange between the Court and the President's counsel as reflected in Document 3 was as follows:

MR. BENNETT: Your Honor, excuse me, Mr. President, I need some guidance from the Court at this point. I'm going to object to the innuendo. I'm afraid, as I say, that this will leak. I don't question the predicates here. I question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo in the question. Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Jane Doe 6 has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton, and yet listening to the innuendo in the questions -

JUDGE WRIGHT: No, just a minute, let me make my ruling. I do not know whether counsel is basing this question an any affidavit, but I will direct Mr. Bennett not to comment on other evidence that might be pertinent and could be arguably coaching the witness at this juncture. Now, I, Mr. Fisher is an officer of this court, and I have to assume that he has a good faith basis for asking the question. If in fact he has no good faith basis for asking this question, he could later be sanctioned. If you would like, I will be happy to review in camera any good faith basis he might have.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Your Honor, with all due respect, I would like to know the proffer. I'm not coaching the witness. In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Doe 6's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know, but I think when he asks questions like this where he's sitting on an affidavit from the witness, he should at least have a good faith proffer.

JUDGE WRIGHT: Now, I agree with you that he needs to have a good faith basis for asking the question.

MR. BENNETT: May we ask what it is, Your Honor?

JUDGE WRIGHT: And I'm assuming that he does, and I will be willing to review this in camera if he does not want to reveal it to counsel.

MR. BENNETT: Fine.

MR. FISHER: I would welcome an opportunity to explain to the Court what our good faith basis is in an in camera hearing.

JUDGE WRIGHT: All right.

MR. FISHER: I would prefer that we not take the time to do that now, but I can tell the Court I am very confident there is substantial basis.

JUDGE WRIGHT: All right, I'm going to permit the question. He's an officer of the Court, and as you know, Mr. Bennett, this Court has ruled on prior occasions that a good faith basis can exist notwithstanding the testimony of the witness, of the deponent, and the other party.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Your Honor, but you understand, and I'm not arguing with you what my concern is, Your Honor, I wouldn't have any trouble with that if I knew that this deposition would be kept under seal. But when he mentions names, when he knows, or at least, you know, hearsay, hearsay, hearsay about something, they check it out, they get an affidavit from the woman, they ask these questions, and the Washington Times will have her name on the front page tomorrow or the day after.

JUDGE WRIGHT: As you know, I'm extremely sympathetic with your position, however this is a discovery deposition.

MR. BENNETT: I understand. That's all right, Your Honor. I'm sorry.

JUDGE WRIGHT: Go ahead.

MR. FISHER: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Document 1, pp. 53-56.)

Clearly, the Court was concerned that this line of questioning be conducted in good faith. Moreover, the Court's admonition regarding the responsibilities of all officers of the court to maintain the integrity of the proceeding was in the forefront of the Court's mind.

Under cross-examination, the following exchange took place between the President and his attorney:

Q. In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she says this, "I have never had a sexual relationship with the president, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for reflecting a sexual relationship." Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?

A. That is absolutely true.

Q. Do you recall, do you recall -

MR. BENNETT: Your Honor, may I have this appended as an exhibit to this deposition, please?

(Document 1, p. 204.)

Document 4 is a transcript of President Clinton's August 17, 1998 address to the nation, which followed his sworn testimony before a Grand Jury. In that address, and apparently in his sworn testimony tendered earlier that day, the President acknowledged that, as you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong.

Widely reported media accounts indicate that the President now admitted to the Grand Jury a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. (Document 5.) The President's representatives have accepted these reports as truthful. (Document 6.) His sworn August 17, 1998 testimony, as represented in the President's address to the nation and in media reports, contradicts his January 17, 1998 deposition testimony presided over by this Court. Moreover, the public record - and the President's own words -- now make clear that the President appears to have intentionally provided this Court with false testimony. (See Document 7.)

The President further appears to have misled the court by allowing his counsel to rely on the Lewinsky affidavit, which the President knew to be false. Despite ample opportunity to do so, the President apparently did not draw the Lewinsky affidavit's untruthfulness to the Court, or apparently to his counsel. The record reflects that the President's attorney represented that Mr. Clinton was "fully aware of [the content of] Ms. Jane Doe 6's affidavit" and that the President was questioned extensively about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by Plaintiff's counsel. Moreover, during Plaintiff's inquiry regarding the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the parties paused for a lunch break (see Document 1, pp. 51-53) giving the President additional opportunity to alert his attorney to the affidavit's untruthfulness. Still the President did not alert the Court to the falsity of the affidavit. Moreover, immediately following the lunch break, in the Court's and the President's presence, the President's attorney cited the Lewinsky affidavit's declaration that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton. . .." (Document 1, p. 54.) The record reflects the President's silence. Finally, in response to his own attorney's inquiry during cross-examination, the President directly asserted the Lewinsky affidavit was truthful. (Document 1, p. 204.)

The United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that the Court has authority under 18 U.S.C. Section 401 to punish the conduct described above as contemptuous. Section 401 provides, in part, that:

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as - (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice...

The United States Supreme Court held in In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224 (1945), that false testimony by a witness combined with further obstruction constitutes contempt under Section 401. Moreover, in Howard v. U.S., 182 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1950), the Circuit Court, applying In re Michael, held that a district court may hold a witness in contempt where the witness's answers were "evasive, fantastic, and untrue, and that their effect and purpose was to obstruct" the inquiry. 182 F.2d at 914. "'Whether this was perjury or false swearing, there is no occasion to inquire. It was a deliberate endeavor to thwart the process of inquiry . . ..'" Id. (quoting Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 10 (1933)).

The President's apparent commissions and omissions in his January 17, 1998 deposition appear to meet and exceed the 8th Circuit's standard. It is incumbent on this Court to ensure the integrity of proceedings over which it presides. As the Court stressed during the President's deposition, officers of the Court (of which the President is one) are bound to conduct themselves in good faith and are subject to sanctions in the event they do not. Certainly the nation's chief law enforcement officer is bound by this standard of conduct.

Accordingly, Landmark Legal Foundation respectfully requests that this Court compel the President to appear before it and answer questions, in open court, on his use of the Lewinsky affidavit and his apparent false testimony. Moreover, respectfully, the Court should make further inquiry to determine whether the President's conduct was part of a broader effort to obstruct the court in the performance of its duty. For example, the Court may wish to determine whether the President knowingly participated in the return of his gifts to Ms. Lewinsky, which were subpoenaed by plaintiff's counsel in the above-captioned proceeding. Importantly, published reports indicate that the House of Representatives may soon consider evidence of possible impeachable offenses against the President under its Article I, Section 2 powers. To delay a hearing on possible contemptuous conduct by the President before this Court is to deny the House of Representatives information that may bear directly on its likely inquiry. For this reason, and for the reasons stated previously, we urge this court to conduct immediately an open hearing on these matters. This case presents the unusual circumstance that the President may have acted contemptuously in the Court's presence. The Court's courtesy to the President, in which it directly supervised his deposition, was apparently met, literally, with contempt.

Dated: September 2, 1998

Respectfully submitted on behalf of Landmark Legal Foundation Mark R. Levin, President 457-B Carlisle Drive Herndon, Virginia 20170 By Richard P. Hutchison Landmark Legal Foundation 3100 Broadway, Suite 515 Kansas City, Missouri 64111 (816) 931-5559 Facsimile (816) 931-1115

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served this ___ day of September, 1998 by first class, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record:

Robert S. Bennett, Esq. Carl S. Rauh, Esq. Mitchell S. Ettinger, Esq. Amy Sabrin, Esq. Katharine S. Sexton, Esq. Raina E. Brubaker, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-7000

Kathlyn Graves, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808

Stephen Engstrom, Esq. WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM, DUDLEY & COULTER 809 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 375-6453

Bill Bristow, P. A. 216 E. Washington Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401

Robert Batten 1412 West Main Jacksonville, Arkansas 71004

Donovan Campbell, Jr. James A. Fisher Robert E. Rader, Jr. David M. Pyke T. Wesley Holmes J. McCord Wilson RADER, CAMPBELL, FISHER & PYKE (A Professional Corporation) Stemmons Place, Suite 1080 2777 Stemmons Freeway Dallas, Texas 75207

John W. Whitehead THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE Post Office Box 7482 1445 East Rio Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-7482