[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright
based
>> >> her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer
>> >> showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it
does not
>> >> constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort.
That
>> >> is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an
>> >> outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that.
>> >>
>> >> Do you agree?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Mornin' Terry,
>> > I think you need to read the decision.
>> >...Mac
>>
>> Hi Mac,
>>
>> Here I will read it to you. This is extracted from the decision:
>>
>>"In addressing the issues in this case, the Court has viewed the record in
>>the
>> light most favorable to the plaintiff and given her the benefit of all
>> reasonable factual inferences, which is required at this stage of the
>> proceedings."
>Mornin',
> That does nothing to support your claim. There is nothing in her decision
> that warrants a charge of prejudice.
>...Mac
Hi Mac,
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. It was more than "boorish and
offensive" conduct when done by an employer against an employee. It was up
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.
Remember, Mac, you charged me with not reading the decision. Maybe you
should look it over.
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
