Lawyers representing disgraced
Congressman Gary Condit Tuesday
contacted Liz Michael, webmistress of
the political advocacy website
LizMichael.com, and a possible
candidate for the 2004 Democratic
nomination for U. S. Senate from
Arizona, inferring that she might be
the subject of a defamation of
character suit on behalf of the
Congressman, a member of the House
Intelligence Committee.

Attorney L. Lin Wood, of the law firm L. Lin Wood, P.C., contacted
Ms. Michael, maintaining that an article which appears on her
website, authored by former Congressman John Leboutillier, entitled
"Condit: Gays, Bisexuals and Murder", was "false and defamatory".
The article suggests the possible involvement of Congressman
Condit in the gay sado-masochism scene in Washington DC, and
suggests that the murder of Chandra Levy was likely connected to
her involvement in the scene, either with Mr. Condit, or with other
heretofore unnamed powerful individuals.

Ms. Michael says that the article was published on LizMichael.com
because it was censored on the Republican activist site
"FreeRepublic", and was also censored in Newsmax, another
conservative publication. Ms. Michael states that she detests
censorship, and has published and linked to several controversial
works which were the subject of government censorship. As for the
facts in the article itself, Ms. Michael states: "I have no personal
knowledge of either Chandra Levy, the circumstances of her death,
or the sexual orientation and habits of Mr. Condit. I do not know
whether the theories and allegations of Mr. Leboutillier are 100% on
the mark. However, I did not consider them to be baseless at the
time they were published, nor have I received any evidence
whatsoever at a later date that they were absolutely false. The
opinion piece has never to my knowledge been publicly retracted."

Ms. Michael's response to the prospect of a Condit lawsuit against
her was, "Go ahead, make my day." She also inferred she would
make any threatening letters or any legal proceedings a very public
event.

I've followed this case a bit, and IMO there has never been a single thing to connect Condit to the murder of Chandra Levy. I don't think he had anything to do with it. It looks like she was killed by a D.C. version of the Bay Area "Trailside Killer".

Still, I saw him interviewed by - Connie Chung? - and he came across as a completely despicable and not very smart human being. That doesn't make him a killer.

But that doesn't mean she deserved to be murdered - - and it doesn't make him the murderer or the person who arranged her death.

The evidence will tell the story if the detectives let it. It is always a mistake to get hooked on a theory and force the evidence to fit (ignoring the truth if necessary to make the theory work).

I do think discussing theories and possibilities is OK - - I don't think anyone has the right to call someone a killer unless they are willing to take a stand and explain exactly why they think so - - and take responsibility for their words.

(I still think the Colorado Governor should have been called on his statements about the Ramseys - - no idea why he got a grand pass.)

Lin Wood has publicly stated that he will not take on any client that he does not think is innocent. I think if Lin starts digging deeply, he may not end up so confident of Condit's innocence.

Chandra was a wonderful candidate for murder, considering that she was probably pregnant and threatening to tell the world that it was his baby. The fact is, she disappeared and was murdered on a Witchs' sabbat like Danielle Van Dam and JonBenet Ramsey.

The world is sleeping while this guy gets away with whatever he wants.

Why would that be?

Did he make any campaign stops in Colorado in 1996? :)

On a more serious note, the information we have so far seems to point to a killer working the woods in which she was murdered. I think we should just follow the evidence and see where it leads. I really don't care one way or another if Condit is guilty. My interest is really in fair treatment by the judicial system, regardless of who the person might be.

I never thought Condit was related in any way to Chandra Levy's disappearance. I always thought she went out for a jog or walk and was mugged & probably raped.

Since her remains were found, I've felt even more strongly that a serial rapist grabbed her while she was jogging.

Lin Wood is an excellent lawyer, and those wrongly accused of vile deeds recognize that more than anyone. Condit made a wise choice for representation.

There was no connection ever made between Condit and Chandra's disappearance or death.

Here's an online article saying pretty much what I am saying:

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/8_01/8_08_01/opinion_frank.shtml

Why suspect? Put the pieces together. Condit, a married politician and a notorious womanizer with much to hide, was having a long-standing affair with the intern. The day before her disappearance, she had told a confidant there was something “important” to reveal. This, naturally, conjures up images of possible pregnancy, confessions of the soul, or then again, something totally unrelated. We may never know. But, the fact remains, she was an item desperately to be kept secret by the horny congressman, remembering all too well the nightmare Clinton and his family endured.

Poof! She disappears into thin air.

Enter Mr. Condit’s conduct, who hadn’t counted on so many others knowing about his affair, a deja vu of Monica Lewinsky’s runaway mouth. Now, I don’t fault Mr. Condit’s initial knee-jerk denial, which is standard for anyone first confronted with allegations of infidelity. But, he carried it too far, continually lying to his staff and to the public when he knew he’d been had, then stalling and hiding behind the protective armor of his attorneys. His cooperation in allowing authorities to search his residence is not so meaningful because there was nothing to be found there that would be incriminating.
So, why not?

He had one great opportunity to pull off a psychological coup, by either offering, or at the least agreeing, to take a lie detector test by an examiner agreed upon by both sides, law enforcement and the Condit camp. Instead, he weaseled out and took a clandestine polygraph conducted by an examiner hired by his own lawyers. Hmmm. Are we supposed to be impressed? Well, that backfired, adding more fuel to the fires of suspicion than dousing them.

As for Lin Wood, he takes on clients who want libel lawyers who are willing to fight the big guys - and Lin Wood is tenatious and effective. He doesn't want to waste his time on losing cases, he likes living nice and going on vacations with his family - - and a wife and 4 kids costs. He gets part of every settlement - and I don't think the man is likely to take on many cases that are obvious losers. It appears Condit may well be innocent of murder or any plans to murder... and it appears he may have been libeled by people with deep pockets. Why WOULDN'T Lin Wood take on that case?

As I stated before, Lin Wood has said that he would never represent someone who he thought was guilty. Maybe he changed his mind about that. If one digs real deeply into Condit's actions, then he or she is likely to become suspicious of Condit.

Much of the early stuff about Condit was, IMO, just the same as that Enquirer stuff: tabloid trash. Condit is no angel and a crummy husband, but I don't see any indication he had anything to do with Chandra's death.

Representing Condit means that Wood maintains that what was said/written by that particular person being sued over what she said/wrote is untrue and cannot be legally defended.

Check the online photos of plastic surgeons who do necklifts and you'll see the same lines/wrinkles on "before" shots.

If you feel that there is a problem with my posts please feel free to delete them. I try not to post falacious information but this is a case where I cannot find the quote and so it is unprovable.

Here's evidence Chandra was strangled. It also shows the guy who assaulted joggers in the same area around the same time was given a lie detector test and he passed.

http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa071501a.htm

edit:
Results of poll:
Who Killed Chandra Levy?

Gary Condit (4404)
84%

Somebody else she knew (217)
4%

A serial killer (187)
3%

The man convicted of assaulting 2 other women in the same park last spring (335)
6%

A mugger (48)
0%

Nobody; she died of natural causes or in an accident (as of May 24, 2002, her death still hadn't been ruled a homicide) (11)
0%

Representing Condit means that Wood maintains that what was said/written by that particular person being sued over what she said/wrote is untrue and cannot be legally defended."

Wood actually stated something to the effect that he does not take on people who he believes are guilty of the crime they are accused of. It does not matter that he is a civil lawyer. Either Wood changed his mind on who he will represent or he hasn't dug very deeply into the Chandra Levy case. While there may never be enough evidence to convict Condict, most people who are very familiar with Condit's words and actions cannot feel extremely confident of his innocence.

I say:
Lin Wood has made a previous comment about not defending anyone who he does not believe is innocent. That is the point I am making. I have never heard any other lawyer make such a statement. The point I am trying to make is that Wood either changed his mind about who he will represent or actually believes that Condit is innocent.

You state:
"- - but he may believe he is totally innocent when it comes to the murder of Chandra Levy. That's all that counts."

Does Lin Wood really believe that Condit is innocent? If so, Lin should dig into this case more deeply. Lin will most likely become very suspicious of Condit.

I guess that wasn't the proper place for me to be - - but I came home and told my husband and kids about it - - I met someone actually named "Elvis Presley" and we had a nice visit. He sure didn't hit on me - I was as safe as could be.

So it doesn't matter to me if Condit was in a gay bar. I don't even care if he IS gay (I am not homophobic) - but I feel bad for his wife if it is true. None of that makes him guilty of the murder of Chandra Levy. Does it?

Or are you thinking Lin needs to believe Condit is innocent of any homosexual leanings in order to sue here? Geesh - - I don't know... and is it really worth worrying about? I mean, isn't what we do behind closed bedroom doors our own business?

I am remembering an old song - - "Ain't nobody's business but my own"