[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Wrong again.
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:35:25 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>Hi Jackie,
>
>As long as you just make things up you can prove anything.
>
>Arkansas law specifies a single act of outrageous conduct as sexual
>harassment. Damage to the plaintiff does not have to be proven in this
>case
>but is assumed. In order to dismiss the suit in its entirety Judge
>Wright
>had to find that the action as described by Jones was not outrageous.
>This
>she did. That is the law and the decision.
>
>>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>Poor Terry
>>
>>I bet it is hard to be the correct interpreter of the legal decision
>reached by
>>Judge Wright. I wonder why the majority of legal experts, both
>Republican and
>>Democrat, agree that based on the evidence presented by her legal
>beagles,
>Paula did
>>not have a case. Wright did not define sexual harassment, it was
>already
>defined in
>>the law and she followed the law.
>>
>>Of course, perhaps, one reason you are having problems in seeing the
>forest
>for the
>>trees is that you are not reading the criteria that Wright had to use
>in
>making her
>>decision. The part that led to the decision was the failure to
>provide
>evidence
>>that she suffered more than a reasonable person can expect. There
>are two
>parts to
>>the law her attornies filed under that must meet the standards. The
>act
>and the
>>consequences of the act. In this case, she did not meet the
>standards set
>out in
>>law regarding the consequences of Bill's alleged act. Wright has
>to
>follow the
>>legal definition of sexual harrassment, not the definition that you
>or
>others decide
>>is the accurate decision. If you know anything about law then you
>know
>that. In
>>this case, IMO, Wright was following the 'letter of the law,' which
>she was
>correct
>>in doing.
>>
>>jackief
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Oh Jackie,
>>>
>>> Judge Wright decided such things were not sexual harassment. She
>did not
>>> decide on the merits of the evidence regarding Jones' description
>of
>>> Clinton's conduct.
>>> Judge Wright decided much more flagrant behaviour by Clinton as
>presumed
>>> true by the requirements of the summary judgment was not
>"outrageous"
>>>
>>> If the representative had had the same ruling he would have not had
>to face
>>> removal from office and criminal prosecution. If he had the same
>supporters
>>> Clinton has his approval would have soared and he might have
>planned a
>>> bright future.
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>In the sociology room the children learn
>>that even dreams are colored by your perspective
>>
>>I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
>>
>>
>>
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>>
>>
>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
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
