[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Mac,
>moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> That says the judge had to base her decision on whatever was presented by
>> Paula Jones as factual. She determined that the actions of Clinton
>> described by Jones were not outrageous conduct. Call it as you will. I
>> call Wright's decision deeply prejudiced.
>
>I believe she states that if you look at the evidence in a light most
favorable >to the plaintiff,which she is required to do, any action by
Clinton didn't meet >the standard.
She said the actions by Clinton were "boorish and offensive" but not
"outrageous." I beg to differ. If you believe an employer does precisely
what Clinton was accused of is not outrageous why not just say so, Mac.
>Should she have lowered the bar? Your claim of prejudice still is
unwarranted >and not supported by the facts.
The bar is in hers and your minds.
>> It was more than "boorish and
>> offensive" conduct when done by an employer against an employee.
>If it was done at all
Judge Wright made the decision based on the actions having taken place. It
was up to a jury to find the truth of the situation in a case of outrageous
conduct.
>> to Judge Wright to determine whether such conduct constituted an actionable
>> tort. It was not up to her to determine the truth of the charges. She
>> decided a jury had no right to determine that because the conduct was not
>> sufficiently gross to be actionable if it was precisely as described.
>Before it can get to a jury certain criteria has to be met and in this case it
>wasn't.
The question was whether it was an actionable tort. That is the criteria
she says was not met. Do you agree or not, Mac?
>Which according to the law and the facts of the case she was absolutely
correct >in her decision.
Which law and facts? The question is a matter of judgment as to whether an
employer can expose himself himself to an employee and tell her to kiss his
penis. Judge Wright says in her opinion it is not sufficiently offensive to
be brought before a jury by a plaintiff asking compensation. Do you agree?
>> Remember, Mac, you charged me with not reading the decision. Maybe you
>> should look it over.
>I have Terry and your interpertation of it is, IMO, wrong and highly
prejudiced >on your part.
>...Mac
Certainly that's your privilege. But you haven't described what it is you
disagree with me about except that you know I am prejudiced.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
